Many thanks Gerard, Much appreciated,
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 15:43, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Ian, > > I wrote I will consider it. > > I can accept your proposition. > It is factually the truth. > > Gerard > > Gerard Freriks > +31 620347088 > [email protected] > > On 7 sep. 2015, at 16:02, Ian McNicoll <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
