The ND on the specs, there must be a kind of protection. Brand
protection could work, but must be registered in all countries of the world.
You see the same problem at RFC's, they solved it like this, you cannot
change them and publish them under the same name.
In the case of RFC a changed version gets a new number.
I don't know what it takes to make an RFC of something and if it would
be appropriate for OpenEHR.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/
Bert
On 06-09-15 22:18, Ian McNicoll wrote:
Hi Erik,
>For some reason, that I have not yet fully understood, previous and current leadership of
openEHR has not yet dared >taking the step to skip all ND- and SA-
clauses. (Like an anxious over-protective parent afraid to give their
now fairly >grown teenager enough trust and freedom.)
The MB has been looking at this issue and I think generally minded to
take the steps to remove the ND- and SA- clauses but we need to be
absolutely clear about the implications.
My understanding is that removing ND (or Public Domain) could only
really be safe if we have solid Trademark protection to prevent a fork
representing itself as 'official openEHR'. This was the approach taken
by FHIR, I believe that for some technical reason, previous attempts
to secure US trademarking was unsuccessful, and course, will cost a
few thousand euros to achieve.
Silje, Heather and myself looked at removing -SA in connection with
better understanding the copyright requirements for forks / moves of
CKM archetypes. There were some concerns that removing -SA might
actually make free movement of archetypes between national repos more
difficult, particularly if national govts start to fork and apply more
restrictive licences. This is not necessarily a blocker but we do need
to think through the implications.
I will raise this at the MB meeting this week wth the suggestion that
we set up a small working group with reps from Software, Clinical and
Specs group Program leads to look at the options and report back.
Ian
Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com <mailto:i...@freshehr.com>
twitter: @ianmcnicoll
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
<mailto:ian.mcnic...@openehr.org>
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
On 5 September 2015 at 09:44, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" <gf...@luna.nl
<mailto:gf...@luna.nl>> wrote:
That is correct.
Some NEN.CEN standards are free to obtain in the Netherlands
because of a contract between the government and the SDO.
Recently the ISO policy is to publish all informative parts of the
standard but not the normative parts.
Experts nominated by countries have a larger access to full
stadard in the context of standards creation/maintenance.
It is my opinion that the SDO’s need an other business model such
that standards are made available for free.
Gerard Freriks
+31 620347088 <tel:%2B31%20620347088>
gf...@luna.nl <mailto:gf...@luna.nl>
On 4 sep. 2015, at 21:58, Diego Boscá <yamp...@gmail.com
<mailto:yamp...@gmail.com>> wrote:
There are free ISO specifications, like schematron and a handful
more.
http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/
You can even ask for an ISO norm to be free. In fact asked for
ISO 13606 to be free, but received no answer.
On 04-09-15 19:55, Ian McNicoll wrote:
I am happy to debate the relevant merits of the ISO vs.
open-source approaches recognising
The one does not exclude the other, I would say.
But on second thought, does ISO prohibit giving a free license,
or publishing the specs for free?
I am not sure about that.
I am sure they prohibit publishing their document.
As is with AOM1.4, it is published as ISO's version by ISO (as
part of ISO13606) and it is published as OpenEHR's version by
OpenEHR , so that can be done.
That both contain the same information.
It is a bit Kafkaesk, but that is normal when bureaucrats get
involved.
Bert
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
<mailto:openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
<mailto:openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
<mailto:openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
