Perhaps I'll add my nickle's worth here. I have personally come to believe that an Open Source project is characterized by an openness to collaborate with others. If one is to work on an OS project alone then gives it away for free - that makes the person a Santa Claus! I have in fact learned that there are many who have the good intention to share their code but few who truly embrace the OS community spirit. I understand Horst's frustration (and others). The fact that we keep hearing that a certain OS will some day be released but in the mean time it's not open for collaboration makes one wonder if it truly is an OS project at all. David
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:08:26 +1000 Thomas Beale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Ho wrote: > > >On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Tim Churches wrote: > >... > > > > > >>Horst Herb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >... > > > > > >>>On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:11, Tim Churches wrote: > >>> > >>> > > > >Thomas, Horst and Tim, > > So, just to clarify. > > I gather that none you know of any specific plan to publish the > >Australian implementation of OpenEHR under an open source license? > > > > > the implementation of which I am talking is _one_ implementation of > openEHR, being done for a clinical trial as part of the national > HealthConnect programme. This isn't the _reference_ implementation of > the openEHR specifications however, which is underway, and which will > definitely be released open source. The HealthConnect project is to > build a system for a particular need, the openEHR reference work will > build high-quality, re-usable openEHR components which can be used in > many systems. As you might imagine there are a number of projects > using openEHR specifications - there is nothing to stop anyone using > them, but there is no obligation on users of the specs to release > their code. > > - thomas > > David H Chan, MD, CCFP, MSc, FCFP Associate Professor Department of Family Medicine McMaster University http://oscarhome.org
