As said, publishing Open Source does not protect against IP.
The Open Source is just protection about the publishing itself, not
about the ideas that are published.
There are rumors, and there are things that can be done.
For example, reasoning:
- AOM1.4 has been an ISO standard for years, so there is certainly no
hidden IP.
- A statement on the Ocean website and the OpenEHR for all to see, and,
saying that Ocean will never claim IP on the Reference Model and AOM.
That helps too.
Of course there can be others who want to claim IP.
Suddenly someone finding out that OpenEHR is very much like a patent he has.
You cannot be held responsible for that.
You never know which patents are out there. And you cannot always find
them, you need to use the right keywords.
But this can happen to anyone. Also to ISO13606.
You can only speak for yourself and for Ocean.
But that should be enough to fight the rumors.
------------
By the way, I think ISO will be a good idea for AOM2.0
Not only from the IP-protection point of view, but also from the point
of trustworthiness.
A standard can only be safe if it is posted at some acknowledged
standardisation organisation.
That does not need to be ISO, but can be Oasis, OMG, whatever, as long
as it is a organization of good reputation in this context.
I would not build my company on base of a standard which is nowhere
published. I don;t like the idea of Microsoft defacto standards very much.
They always keeping them unstable to have advantage on the market of
being the first to know.
See the document-standard, see the SMB network protocol, see their
HTML-constructs, see many things.
Finally they got a document standard certificated, and now they don't
use it, but stick to their non-standardized formats.
You would not want that for AOM, would you?
Bert
On 03-09-15 02:07, Ian McNicoll wrote:
Hi Bert,
I am certainly conscious of rumours. Some of these are due to general
suspicion of open source licensing (and we can, I think, do more to
alleviate this) but I am afraid some of anxiety is also caused by
inaccurate and misleading information "openEHR is proprietary",
regularly stated by a small number of individuals. I have had to ask
for these to be corrected in a number of documents e.g. The
SemanticHealthNet report where it was agreed by the principal authors,
including Dipak, to be incorrect.
Since a significant number of companies and national organisations now
make use of openEHR specifications or artefacts, these statements are
being regarded as commercially hostile and the Foundation Boards both
agree that legal action should now be taken where the authors are not
prepared to promptly correct this inaccuracy.
Leaving that aside. I am not convinced that ISO is a good home for
openEHR. The specifications, development and revision process in ISO
remain completely closed and quite at odds withopenEHR principles but
I would be interested in other's views.
I do think that some sort of association with a formal standards body
would help alleviate some of the anxieties you mention (though these
are imaginary) but I am not sure that ISO would be my first choice as
it is currently constructed. I will raise the issue of whether to
submit AOM2 with the Management Board.
I am interested in other people's opinions.
Ian
Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
twitter: @ianmcnicoll
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
On 1 September 2015 at 16:48, Bert Verhees <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 01-09-15 17:16, Bert Verhees wrote:
I have written a text (reply to Erik) in Stackoverflow,
describing why it will be good for OpenEHR if AOM2.0 will
become an ISO-standard in the context of ISO13606 renewal.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32010122/are-the-hl7-fhir-hl7-cda-cimi-openehr-and-iso13606-approaches-aiming-to-solve/
I must add, it is not that I suspect anyone of having secret IP on
OpenEHR.
I have no reason to suspect this.
But I know people who have such suspicions, and having the
AOM-part as an ISO standard, surely will fight these rumors.
I think it will help OpenEHR-implementations to have more customers.
Bert
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
