Hi Bert, My primary concern was to establish that the use of 'proprietary' in the context of openEHR, particularly in the context of specifications / archetypes but also in terms of governance, gives the impression (perhaps unintended), that
a) the specifications and archetypes are licensed using a closed-source license. b) that ownership of the IP rests with a commercial organisation. both of which are misleading ,and I am very grateful to Gerard for acknowledging this difficulty. Gerard, Gunnar and others express a perfectly legitimate concern that the current 'ownership' of openEHR rests with a single organisation i.e UCL, and would prefer that a broader member-ownership model would be a better alternative. I am sure the Board of Governors would be very happy to see some proposals to be put forward on this basis, but I also think it was correct for the previous Board to continue with the current arrangement while the new elected MB gets up to speed and hopefully gets things moving at a practical level. There are other more complex issues around the exact flavour of licensing which some of us feel can act as a deterrent to some potential customers. That is also understood and being discussed by the MB but it does need careful thinking through, as there may be some unintended consequences if we get it wrong. We also have to recognise that against those perceived deterrents, a large number of commercial and governmental organisations are quite happy to use and endorse openEHR so these arguments are quite nuanced. So am I happy that the worrying of potential customers is over? Of course not! We still have work to do to understand if changing the licensing arrangements and high-level governance will further reduce these concerns. We still have to pursue alignment with SDO's to see if that too will reduce anxieties, but we have to ensure that any such alignment does not conflict with our chosen methodology / philosophy. I think we also have to recognise that some of these fears are groundless and based on risk-aversion to open-source in general or bodies that do not have 'official' SDO status, when such fears are generally diminishing throughout industry. I am sure there will be ongoing robust discussions about the best approach but I am very encouraged that there seems to me to be 100% consensus on the end goal - open specifications, open governance and agile methodology. 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 8 September 2015 at 08:30, Bert Verhees <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, September 04, 2015 18:55:02 Ian McNicoll wrote: > > However, your use of 'proprietary' in this context is highly misleading, > > particularly as it applies to phrases like 'proprietary standards' or > > 'proprietary specifications'. > > > > I could equally use the phrase 'proprietary specifications' to refer to > ISO > > specifications, on the basis that in software licensing terms, ISO > material > > and processes are behind a closed paywall. That would be equally > unhelpful > > and confusing to potential consumers. > > > > I would hope you would consider rephrasing your statements to reflect > your > > actual concerns. As things stand it seems to me you are inadvertently > > misleading you readers, and I am sure you would wish your views to be > > clearly understood. > > Hi Ian, > > I am a bit puzzled by the communications with Gerard you had yesterday. > > You seem very pleased with the statements that Gerard did yesterday about > the > ownership of OpenEHR foundation, an ownership would not anymore be called > "proprietary". For me is owning pretty much the same as proprietary when > it is > about companies. But there seems to to be for you a pleasing difference. > > Don't get me wrong, I am happy for you that you are pleased, and I think I > will not disturb that feeling with unpleasant thoughts. > Because I think that you have a good logical reasoning about how Gerard's > statement is an answer to your concern you expressed last Friday, which was > very much OpenEHR-specification-related. > > It is only that I don't get it. > > I still don't know how Gerard at this moment thinks about the openness of > the > OpenEHR specifications. > Do you know, Ian? You cared a lot about this last Friday, so how are your > feelings about this now? Are you also pleased? > > Since this is a public mailinglist, in which it is natural that the public > is > able to understand the reasonings, it maybe the case that a significant > part of > the public reading here does not have enough information to understand why > you > are so pleased. > > You expressed also concern about what potential customers would think about > the openness of OpenEHR specifications, and Erik even mentioned the word > FUD. > > Do you think that now potential customers are satisfied by the proceedings > evolving yesterday and their worrying is over? > > Thank you very much for further enlightenments. > > Best regards > 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
