Can someone help to take me off the list. I have signed into the list and unsubscribe and still unsuccessful.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 5:05 PM, William Goossen <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > Can anyone explain what ND, SA and RFC stand for? > > I personally do not believe in free standards. Standards come at a cost, > is the work put in to it and the travels etc for consensus meetings. > > We at NEN have deliberately added a price tag to volunteer work put into a > standard. Not for being paid, but to get a valid idea of how much people > put in to it. > > The other thing is how to keep such work sustainable in the long run. If > someone makes a business eg from software that runs on "free" archetypes, > who will pay the archetype maker? > > No simple solution I am afraid > > Met vriendelijke groet / With kind regards, > > > dr. William T.F. Goossen > > > directeur Results 4 Care B.V. > De Stinse 15 > 3823 VM Amersfoort > the Netherlands > > telefoon +31654614458 > > e-mail: [email protected] > [email protected] > skype: williamgoossenmobiel > kamer van koophandel 32133713 > http://www.results4care.nl > http://www.results4care.eu > http://results4care.wikispaces.com/ > http://www.linkedin.com/company/711047 > http://results4care.wikispaces.com/3.+Cursussen+Nederlands > ------------------------------ > Van: [email protected] > Verzonden: 6-9-2015 22:48 > Aan: [email protected] > Onderwerp: openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 43, Issue 22 > > Send openEHR-technical mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of openEHR-technical digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Advantage of ISO (Ian McNicoll) > 2. Re: Advantage of ISO (Bert Verhees) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 21:18:47 +0100 > From: Ian McNicoll <[email protected]> > To: For openEHR technical discussions > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Advantage of ISO > Message-ID: > <CAG-n1KyBsSwXOhSY=N=k66b0bzs1mm0e4ybjq9jbejbox8c...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > 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: [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 5 September 2015 at 09:44, "Gerard Freriks (priv?)" <[email protected]> > 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 > > [email protected] > > > > On 4 sep. 2015, at 21:58, Diego Bosc? <[email protected]> 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 > > [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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150906/7292e712/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2015 22:48:36 +0200 > From: Bert Verhees <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Advantage of ISO > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" > > 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: [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 5 September 2015 at 09:44, "Gerard Freriks (priv?)" <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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> > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > >> On 4 sep. 2015, at 21:58, Diego Bosc? <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > >> [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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] > > <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 > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150906/6ed8784a/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > ------------------------------ > > End of openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 43, Issue 22 > ************************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > -- -Julian
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
