Thanks Gerard, That is very positive and helpful. Would you consider adjusting to ‘ openEHR is a not-for-profit company established by UCL’ which I hope captures your reservations about single ownership without giving the impression that this is a 'for-profit 'company?
Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: [email protected] twitter: @ianmcnicoll Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation [email protected] Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On 7 September 2015 at 14:38, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Ian, > > As I wrote you privately I promised to think over my use of words. > > Referring to my e-mail with the definition, as I used it, plus the quote > from the openEHR website, > it must have been clear that I was pointing at ownership of the openEHR > organisation. > > I’m aware now, that ‘proprietary’ has an other, different, meaning, when > applied to software or specifications. > My original e-mail conveyed an unintended meaning, is my conclusion. > Therefore I will no longer use the word ‘proprietary’ but the phrase ‘ > openEHR as a company owned by UCL’. > > With regards, > > Gerard > > Gerard Freriks > +31 620347088 > [email protected] > > On 3 sep. 2015, at 02:07, Ian McNicoll <[email protected]> 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] > twitter: @ianmcnicoll > > Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation [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]> 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] >> >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
