openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[pablo pazos]

Hi Sam,

> Let's stay with the issue of how we stop someone copyrighting and charging
> for a specialised archetype? Or a template that is fundamental to health
> care (like an antenatal visit)?
> 
> Cheers, Sam
> 

Why we need to define a license to stop someone to copyright or charge for a 
specialized archetype?

I think this could be done by defining "user terms" to the archetypes 
downloaded from the CKM (and every CKM around the world must have the same "use 
terms".
You can include something like this on the user terms: all artefacts 
(archetypes, templates, term sets, etc) downloaded from *here* are public and 
free to use and to specialize. All artefacts derived from those, alse must be 
free. This is a copyleft scheme.

If I want to use artefacts from a "public CKM", I must follow those rules. Of 
course, anyone can create its own CKM and create artefacts from scratch and do 
whatever they want with those artefacts.

I think you can charge for the time you invest in specialize artefacts from 
public CKMs, but not sell the artifact itself. If you create the artefact from 
scratch its the creators desition to charge or not.


What do you think?


Regards,
Pablo.
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Erik Sundvall]

Hi!

> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 16:54, Sam Heard  
> wrote:
>> Let's stay with the issue of how we stop someone copyrighting and charging
>> for a specialised archetype? Or a template that is fundamental to health
>> care (like an antenatal visit)?

So, Sam have you finally dropped the thought that CC-BY-SA would
protect against patent system abuse? We have not gotten a clear answer
to this yet.

Is your only remaining concern now that you believe copyright law
might be so strong that it would stop possibilities to do
specialisations with the same main functionality as possibly
copyrighted useful specialisations? Is that your only remaining "SA"
motive?

Sam, since you are and have been so extremely powerful in the formal
openEHR decision process, we really need to understand your thoughts,
thus I and others have been probing to figure out your reasoning for
years.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 00:21, Timothy Cook  
wrote:
> Maybe that isn't such a bad thing. ?They are only roping themselves
> into their own corner.

:-)

We as a community could always provide help in highlighting those "ropes" via:
- Technical means: license detection upon import of archetypes and EHR
data (as described on the wiki)
- Social & political means: questioning the fairness and wisdom of
parties trying to block the common good of semantic interoperability.
Their income often somehow originates from public funding and they
should be concerned about potential badwill.

We can probably also get around the hypothetical/potential problem by
making a similar (hopefully even better) specialisation ourselves (not
an exact copy) that covers the same needs. It will be hard for the
"copyrighting and charging"-bad guys to claim that another
implementation of the idea is a verbatim copy (prohibited by
copyright) and that their work has enough innovation height that is
not obvious to skilled persons (and thus patentable). The same
argument goes the other way too - even ideas from a CC-BY-SA licensed
archetype from openEHR may be fairly closely re-implemented as
completely closed/copyrighted and it would be both hard and
time-consuming for the openEHR foundation to try and stop this
(anti-interoperable) approach, so let's reduce the temptation by
simply using CC-BY.

Copyright does not stop ideas the same broad way patents do. To
software people I believe it's obvious that improvement-ideas in
commercial closed source forks of e.g. apache-licensed software
projects does not prevent the open source original project to
reimplement similar ideas (as long as the closed source code is not
copied). Copyright is not nearly as harmful as patents in these cases.

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 01:37, Sam Heard  
wrote:
> Our advice was that having copyright simplifies the world. Having said that
> the same archetypes now exist in other repositories with copyright assigned
> to the national provider, so it is already murky.

Well, if the national providers had been encouraged to use CC-BY
instead of CC-BY-SA then it wouldn't matter at all who had the
copyright (as Tom has pointed out several times over the years)...

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 05:25, Sam Heard  
wrote:
> ...government agencies and companies will want to know that no one has 
> recourse to legal action if they use an archetype.

Is that a "copy" of the ideas behind my argument _against_ CC-BY-SA? :-)

Best regards,
Erik Sundvall
erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Sam Heard]

Well that may be true but government agencies and companies will want to know 
that no one has recourse to legal action if they use an archetype.

Cheers Sam

Sent from my phone

On 09/09/2011, at 8:21 AM, Timothy Cook  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 16:54, Sam Heard  
> wrote:
>> Hi Tom
>> 
>> It is normal practice with CC to include clarifications and the whole
>> structure of the license is designed to do this.
>> 
>> Let's stay with the issue of how we stop someone copyrighting and charging
>> for a specialised archetype? Or a template that is fundamental to health
>> care (like an antenatal visit)?
> 
> Maybe that isn't such a bad thing.  They are only roping themselves
> into their own corner.
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Sam Heard]

Hi Tom

It is normal practice with CC to include clarifications and the whole
structure of the license is designed to do this.

Let's stay with the issue of how we stop someone copyrighting and charging
for a specialised archetype? Or a template that is fundamental to health
care (like an antenatal visit)?

Cheers, Sam

> -Original Message-
> From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-
> bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale
> Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011 10:30 AM
> To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
> Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing
> question
> 
> On 07/09/2011 21:46, Sam Heard wrote:
> > Thanks Stef
> >
> > The previous Board did not want to make an error and use too loose a
> > licence given that there is no going back.
> >
> > Our concern is that someone could specialize an archetype and claim
> > copyright, or create a template and do the same. It is our intention
> > at this stage to have a specific clause in the licence that limits it
> > to derived archetypes and templates.
> 
> I don't think actually changing the text of any accepted, well known
> license is a good idea at all - then it becomes something for which no
> legal analysis is available, and won't be trusted by anyone. Instead,
> openEHR should simply state which kinds of artefacts require which
> kinds
> of license (if any).
> 
> - thomas
> 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Timothy Cook]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 16:54, Sam Heard  
wrote:
> Hi Tom
>
> It is normal practice with CC to include clarifications and the whole
> structure of the license is designed to do this.
>
> Let's stay with the issue of how we stop someone copyrighting and charging
> for a specialised archetype? Or a template that is fundamental to health
> care (like an antenatal visit)?

Maybe that isn't such a bad thing.  They are only roping themselves
into their own corner.

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[pablo pazos]

I agree with you Shinji, well said!

-- 
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos

> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 21:15:34 +0900
> Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question
> From: skoba at moss.gr.jp
> To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
> 
> Hi Sam and all
> 
> Thank you for comments about localisation.
> First of all, I emphasize LOCALISATION is not ISOLATION.
> Only to fork and arrange global resource for local usage is isolation.
> True localisation is to feed back such experience to enrich core
> implementation.
> I think endorsement program at page 4 of white book should include
> localisation as global promotion, and endorsement / promotion program
> should have a board like other specification / clinical modeling / software
> engineering.
> Because local activity management depends on its own domestic situation,
> local governance should be decided by local community. However, bad
> localisation disgrace all of our community and makes people unhappy in its 
> area.
> So I think local activity requirements are,
> * Keep contact with global community
> * Implement openEHR clinical models for domestic use.
> * Provide proper translation, specialised implementation for their domain.
> * Promote openEHR specification for their domain.(Web/mailing list)
> * Governance of local community as good status
> * Feed back localisation experience to global community.
> I also think two or three of these conditions are enough to be a local 
> activity.
> 
> These are my requests from Japan(probably from other local activities, too)
> * Permit to use openEHR name and logo for domestic promotion.
> * Publish local activity directory for whom need to contact with them
> on the openEHR.org web.
> * Disallow to use openEHR  name and logo whenf you think we are not
> worth to use.
> * Keep contact with local activities.
> 
> Cheers,
> Shinji KOBAYASHI
> 
> 2011/9/7 Sam Heard :
> > Hi Pablo and Shinji
> > Supporting localization both technical and operational needs to be included.
> > The no language primacy principle is a real winner, different written forms
> > of the same language is not covered as yet.
> > How local groups run is another, clearly these can be national or context
> > based.
> > Thanks for the input.
> > Cheers Sam
> >
> > Sent from my phone
> > On 07/09/2011, at 2:38 AM, pablo pazos  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Shinji,
> >
> > That's exactly what I tried to point in another mail to the lists: local and
> > regional openEHR organizations should be supported by openEHR and we need to
> > put it into the white paper.
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> > Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
> > LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
> > Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
> >
> >> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 19:13:45 +0300
> >> Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question
> >> From: skoba at moss.gr.jp
> >> To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I have been suffered by sever jet lag after long trip, while I have
> >> been thinking about this new white
> >> paper and our local activity. I could not find such localisation
> >> activity in this white paper, but please
> >> consider and mention about such local activity.
> >> I would like to show these two proposals.
> >> 1) Local activity support.
> >> As a global standard, localisation to each country or area is
> >> necessary. My three years experience
> >> to implementation of the Ruby codes, archetypes and template, we need
> >> lots of localisation efforts
> >> for Japanese use. I think this experience may be available to localise
> >> for other countries. East Asian
> >> countries people is keen in openEHR development and their engagements
> >> are promising for their
> >> health care.
> >>
> >> 2) Premature artefact repository
> >> CKM provides us well-considered archetypes and templates. This is a
> >> great knowledge resource
> >> for mankind. However, to incubate archetype as a common concept takes
> >> long time like vintage wine.
> >> On the other hand, I need more agile movement for daily development. I
> >> have developed about 50
> >> archetypes and 6 templates. These artefacts are still premature to
> >> evaluate on CKM,

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Sam Heard]

Hi Tim, 
It is tangled up with the CC-BY-SA question. Some one needs to have the 
copyright or there is a license agreement that is evoked as you enter the the 
archetype in the repository.

Our advice was that having copyright simplifies the world. Having said that the 
same archetypes now exist in other repositories with copyright assigned to the 
national provider, so it is already murky.

The real point is that interoperability depends on sharing archetypes, which 
need to be available for use without regard to others. 

By that, I also mean I can freely use ANY archetype or template out there if I 
need to.

Cheers Sam

Sent from my phone

On 08/09/2011, at 9:05 AM, Timothy Cook  wrote:

> Sam,
> 
> Just to be clear.  Is it yours and the boards intent that all
> archetypes and templates be marked as copyright openEHR Foundation?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 15:46, Sam Heard  
> wrote:
>> Thanks Stef
>> The previous Board did not want to make an error and use too loose a licence
>> given that there is no going back.
>> Our concern is that someone could specialize an archetype and claim
>> copyright, or create a template and do the same. It is our intention at this
>> stage to have a specific clause in the licence that limits it to derived
>> archetypes and templates. At all discussions with industrial parties this
>> has been acceptable, many see it as positive as the corollary of Eric's
>> approach (which may be the best) is that there are heaps of archetypes out
>> there that have openEHR attribution but are copyright to other parties.
>> 
>> Is it clear what I am saying. It is a conundrum - and needs careful
>> appraisal before going to BY alone.
>> Cheers Sam
>> Sent from my phone
>> On 07/09/2011, at 10:38 PM, Stef Verlinden  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Op 7 sep 2011, om 09:55 heeft Erik Sundvall het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>> Do read that wikipage and follow the links there to the mail
>> discussions. What is it that you think is missing or unclear in the
>> arguments against SA?
>> 
>> That they're hidden in a lot of text form which one has to follow through
>> hyperlinks and read even more text.
>> You stated somewhere - correctly - that companies want to avoid risk,
>> similarly decision makers want to avoid reading through lengthy discussion
>> (from which they have to draw there own conclusions:-) )
>> 
>> If I understand you correctly your main argument is that:
>> the share alike (SA) requirement will create a risk for lengthy juridical
>> procedures - in every country they operate - for companies  who include
>> openEHR archetypes or derivatives thereof in their systems. Since companies
>> avoid risk, they  will choose other solutions without an SA requirement.
>> The reason for this is that it's not clear what SA exactly means. For
>> instance in the context of building archetype-based GUI- stubs, forms etc.
>> in proprietary systems. As a consequence it could be possible that companies
>> are forced - unwillingly - to open up the source of their proprietary
>> systems. It will take years and many court cases, in different countries, to
>> sort this out. Until then (the large) companies will stay away from openEHR.
>> This problem can be avoided completely by dropping the SA requirement.
>> 
>> So I guess the first question is: who has a solid argument against Erik's
>> argument.
>> The second question is: what are the exact benefits of the SA requirement
>> and are they worth the risk of companies not using openEHR at all (presuming
>> that's a real risk).
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Stef
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>> 
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Timothy Cook, MSc
> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook
> Skype ID == timothy.cook
> Academic.Edu Profile: http://uff.academia.edu/TimothyCook
> 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Sam Heard]

Thanks Stef

The previous Board did not want to make an error and use too loose a licence 
given that there is no going back.

Our concern is that someone could specialize an archetype and claim copyright, 
or create a template and do the same. It is our intention at this stage to have 
a specific clause in the licence that limits it to derived archetypes and 
templates. At all discussions with industrial parties this has been acceptable, 
many see it as positive as the corollary of Eric's approach (which may be the 
best) is that there are heaps of archetypes out there that have openEHR 
attribution but are copyright to other parties.

Is it clear what I am saying. It is a conundrum - and needs careful appraisal 
before going to BY alone.

Cheers Sam

Sent from my phone

On 07/09/2011, at 10:38 PM, Stef Verlinden  wrote:

> 
> Op 7 sep 2011, om 09:55 heeft Erik Sundvall het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Do read that wikipage and follow the links there to the mail
>> discussions. What is it that you think is missing or unclear in the
>> arguments against SA?
> 
> 
> 
> That they're hidden in a lot of text form which one has to follow through 
> hyperlinks and read even more text.
> 
> You stated somewhere - correctly - that companies want to avoid risk, 
> similarly decision makers want to avoid reading through lengthy discussion 
> (from which they have to draw there own conclusions:-) )
> 
> 
> If I understand you correctly your main argument is that:
> 
> the share alike (SA) requirement will create a risk for lengthy juridical 
> procedures - in every country they operate - for companies  who include 
> openEHR archetypes or derivatives thereof in their systems. Since companies 
> avoid risk, they  will choose other solutions without an SA requirement.
> 
> The reason for this is that it's not clear what SA exactly means. For 
> instance in the context of building archetype-based GUI- stubs, forms etc. in 
> proprietary systems. As a consequence it could be possible that companies are 
> forced - unwillingly - to open up the source of their proprietary systems. It 
> will take years and many court cases, in different countries, to sort this 
> out. Until then (the large) companies will stay away from openEHR.
> 
> This problem can be avoided completely by dropping the SA requirement.
> 
> 
> So I guess the first question is: who has a solid argument against Erik's 
> argument.
> 
> The second question is: what are the exact benefits of the SA requirement and 
> are they worth the risk of companies not using openEHR at all (presuming 
> that's a real risk).
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Stef
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Sam Heard]

Thank you Shinji, this is an excellent idea - to really put support for 
language and other localization at the heart. I would propose that one 
Organisation become an associate and manage local activites - which 
Organisation should be by a vote of local associates.

This prevents the need for a lot of administrative activity.

What do others think?

Cheers Sam

Sent from my phone

On 07/09/2011, at 10:15 PM, Shinji KOBAYASHI  wrote:

> Hi Sam and all
> 
> Thank you for comments about localisation.
> First of all, I emphasize LOCALISATION is not ISOLATION.
> Only to fork and arrange global resource for local usage is isolation.
> True localisation is to feed back such experience to enrich core
> implementation.
> I think endorsement program at page 4 of white book should include
> localisation as global promotion, and endorsement / promotion program
> should have a board like other specification / clinical modeling / software
> engineering.
> Because local activity management depends on its own domestic situation,
> local governance should be decided by local community. However, bad
> localisation disgrace all of our community and makes people unhappy in its 
> area.
> So I think local activity requirements are,
> * Keep contact with global community
> * Implement openEHR clinical models for domestic use.
> * Provide proper translation, specialised implementation for their domain.
> * Promote openEHR specification for their domain.(Web/mailing list)
> * Governance of local community as good status
> * Feed back localisation experience to global community.
> I also think two or three of these conditions are enough to be a local 
> activity.
> 
> These are my requests from Japan(probably from other local activities, too)
> * Permit to use openEHR name and logo for domestic promotion.
> * Publish local activity directory for whom need to contact with them
> on the openEHR.org web.
> * Disallow to use openEHR  name and logo whenf you think we are not
> worth to use.
> * Keep contact with local activities.
> 
> Cheers,
> Shinji KOBAYASHI
> 
> 2011/9/7 Sam Heard :
>> Hi Pablo and Shinji
>> Supporting localization both technical and operational needs to be included.

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Thomas Beale]

On 07/09/2011 21:46, Sam Heard wrote:
> Thanks Stef
>
> The previous Board did not want to make an error and use too loose a 
> licence given that there is no going back.
>
> Our concern is that someone could specialize an archetype and claim 
> copyright, or create a template and do the same. It is our intention 
> at this stage to have a specific clause in the licence that limits it 
> to derived archetypes and templates.

I don't think actually changing the text of any accepted, well known 
license is a good idea at all - then it becomes something for which no 
legal analysis is available, and won't be trusted by anyone. Instead, 
openEHR should simply state which kinds of artefacts require which kinds 
of license (if any).

- thomas

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Thomas Beale]

Tim,

There are two possibilities for archetypes that are donated to a place 
like CKM in openEHR.org.

1. copyright remains with the originator
2. copyright goes to the publisher, which could be openEHR.org, or some 
national e-health programme, or some other body

When there is a license attached (e.g. CC-BY), it doesn't matter that 
much, since the rights of the user are defined mostly by the license 
rather than direct reversion to copyright law in some country. However, 
as with most open source code, it probably makes sense if the copyright 
is given to openEHR or other publishing entity (e.g. some national 
e-health programme), since this avoids fights about which of the 20 
contributors to an archetype should have copyright. In the end, 
copyright is a nearly useless concept for changing artefacts, it only 
really works with unchanging ones like books and paintings. As long as 
attirbutions to original author(s) and contributors are made in the 
artefact text, I would say that making the artefact copyright to the 
relevant publishing organisation makes more sense. Many archetypes won't 
really have any 'original author' - just contributors, due to being 
truly team-built artefacts.

- thomas


On 08/09/2011 00:05, Timothy Cook wrote:
> Sam,
>
> Just to be clear.  Is it yours and the boards intent that all
> archetypes and templates be marked as copyright openEHR Foundation?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 15:46, Sam Heard  
> wrote:
>> Thanks Stef
>> The previous Board did not want to make an error and use too loose a licence
>> given that there is no going back.
>> Our concern is that someone could specialize an archetype and claim
>> copyright, or create a template and do the same. It is our intention at this
>> stage to have a specific clause in the licence that limits it to derived
>> archetypes and templates. At all discussions with industrial parties this
>> has been acceptable, many see it as positive as the corollary of Eric's
>> approach (which may be the best) is that there are heaps of archetypes out
>> there that have openEHR attribution but are copyright to other parties.
>>
>> Is it clear what I am saying. It is a conundrum - and needs careful
>> appraisal before going to BY alone.
>> Cheers Sam
>> Sent from my phone
>> On 07/09/2011, at 10:38 PM, Stef Verlinden  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Op 7 sep 2011, om 09:55 heeft Erik Sundvall het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Do read that wikipage and follow the links there to the mail
>> discussions. What is it that you think is missing or unclear in the
>> arguments against SA?
>>
>> That they're hidden in a lot of text form which one has to follow through
>> hyperlinks and read even more text.
>> You stated somewhere - correctly - that companies want to avoid risk,
>> similarly decision makers want to avoid reading through lengthy discussion
>> (from which they have to draw there own conclusions:-) )
>>
>> If I understand you correctly your main argument is that:
>> the share alike (SA) requirement will create a risk for lengthy juridical
>> procedures - in every country they operate - for companies  who include
>> openEHR archetypes or derivatives thereof in their systems. Since companies
>> avoid risk, they  will choose other solutions without an SA requirement.
>> The reason for this is that it's not clear what SA exactly means. For
>> instance in the context of building archetype-based GUI- stubs, forms etc.
>> in proprietary systems. As a consequence it could be possible that companies
>> are forced - unwillingly - to open up the source of their proprietary
>> systems. It will take years and many court cases, in different countries, to
>> sort this out. Until then (the large) companies will stay away from openEHR.
>> This problem can be avoided completely by dropping the SA requirement.
>>
>> So I guess the first question is: who has a solid argument against Erik's
>> argument.
>> The second question is: what are the exact benefits of the SA requirement
>> and are they worth the risk of companies not using openEHR at all (presuming
>> that's a real risk).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Stef
>>
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Ocean Informatics   *Thomas Beale
Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics 
*

Chair Architectural Review Board, /open/EHR Foundation 

Honorary Research Fellow, University College London 

Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society 

Health IT blog 


*
*
-- next part --
An HTML attachme

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Shinji KOBAYASHI]

Hi Sam and all

Thank you for comments about localisation.
First of all, I emphasize LOCALISATION is not ISOLATION.
Only to fork and arrange global resource for local usage is isolation.
True localisation is to feed back such experience to enrich core
implementation.
I think endorsement program at page 4 of white book should include
localisation as global promotion, and endorsement / promotion program
should have a board like other specification / clinical modeling / software
engineering.
Because local activity management depends on its own domestic situation,
local governance should be decided by local community. However, bad
localisation disgrace all of our community and makes people unhappy in its area.
So I think local activity requirements are,
* Keep contact with global community
* Implement openEHR clinical models for domestic use.
* Provide proper translation, specialised implementation for their domain.
* Promote openEHR specification for their domain.(Web/mailing list)
* Governance of local community as good status
* Feed back localisation experience to global community.
I also think two or three of these conditions are enough to be a local activity.

These are my requests from Japan(probably from other local activities, too)
* Permit to use openEHR name and logo for domestic promotion.
* Publish local activity directory for whom need to contact with them
on the openEHR.org web.
* Disallow to use openEHR  name and logo whenf you think we are not
worth to use.
* Keep contact with local activities.

Cheers,
Shinji KOBAYASHI

2011/9/7 Sam Heard :
> Hi Pablo and Shinji
> Supporting localization both technical and operational needs to be included.
> The no language primacy principle is a real winner, different written forms
> of the same language is not covered as yet.
> How local groups run is another, clearly these can be national or context
> based.
> Thanks for the input.
> Cheers Sam
>
> Sent from my phone
> On 07/09/2011, at 2:38 AM, pablo pazos  wrote:
>
> Hi Shinji,
>
> That's exactly what I tried to point in another mail to the lists: local and
> regional openEHR organizations should be supported by openEHR and we need to
> put it into the white paper.
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
> LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
> Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
>
>> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 19:13:45 +0300
>> Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question
>> From: skoba at moss.gr.jp
>> To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I have been suffered by sever jet lag after long trip, while I have
>> been thinking about this new white
>> paper and our local activity. I could not find such localisation
>> activity in this white paper, but please
>> consider and mention about such local activity.
>> I would like to show these two proposals.
>> 1) Local activity support.
>> As a global standard, localisation to each country or area is
>> necessary. My three years experience
>> to implementation of the Ruby codes, archetypes and template, we need
>> lots of localisation efforts
>> for Japanese use. I think this experience may be available to localise
>> for other countries. East Asian
>> countries people is keen in openEHR development and their engagements
>> are promising for their
>> health care.
>>
>> 2) Premature artefact repository
>> CKM provides us well-considered archetypes and templates. This is a
>> great knowledge resource
>> for mankind. However, to incubate archetype as a common concept takes
>> long time like vintage wine.
>> On the other hand, I need more agile movement for daily development. I
>> have developed about 50
>> archetypes and 6 templates. These artefacts are still premature to
>> evaluate on CKM, but I would
>> like to discuss about my artefacts on line with many people. Yes, it
>> will be a 99% junk repository,
>> but 1% diamond would be a precious for our community. As Major league
>> cannot exist without
>> minor leagues, I think CKM needs such minor artefacts groups.
>> I am preparing to share them on GitHub, because anyone can use
>> repository for each use by fork
>> and merge request is useful.
>> I think the licence of this repository would adopt CC-BY-SA, is this
>> OK, Erik and Ian?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Shinji KOBAYASHI(in Japan, a path of typhoon.)
>>
>> 2011/9/6 Erik Sundvall :
>> > Thanks for replying Sam!
>> >
>> > Erik Wrote (to openEHR-technical at openehr.org):
>> >>> Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the o

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Timothy Cook]

Sam,

Just to be clear.  Is it yours and the boards intent that all
archetypes and templates be marked as copyright openEHR Foundation?

Thanks.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 15:46, Sam Heard  
wrote:
> Thanks Stef
> The previous Board did not want to make an error and use too loose a licence
> given that there is no going back.
> Our concern is that someone could specialize an archetype and claim
> copyright, or create a template and do the same. It is our intention at this
> stage to have a specific clause in the licence that limits it to derived
> archetypes and templates. At all discussions with industrial parties this
> has been acceptable, many see it as positive as the corollary of Eric's
> approach (which may be the best) is that there are heaps of archetypes out
> there that have openEHR attribution but are copyright to other parties.
>
> Is it clear what I am saying. It is a conundrum - and needs careful
> appraisal before going to BY alone.
> Cheers Sam
> Sent from my phone
> On 07/09/2011, at 10:38 PM, Stef Verlinden  wrote:
>
>
> Op 7 sep 2011, om 09:55 heeft Erik Sundvall het volgende geschreven:
>
> Do read that wikipage and follow the links there to the mail
> discussions. What is it that you think is missing or unclear in the
> arguments against SA?
>
> That they're hidden in a lot of text form which one has to follow through
> hyperlinks and read even more text.
> You stated somewhere - correctly - that companies want to avoid risk,
> similarly decision makers want to avoid reading through lengthy discussion
> (from which they have to draw there own conclusions:-) )
>
> If I understand you correctly your main argument is that:
> the share alike (SA) requirement will create a risk for lengthy juridical
> procedures?- in every country they operate -?for companies ?who include
> openEHR archetypes or derivatives thereof in their systems. Since companies
> avoid risk, they ?will choose other solutions without an SA requirement.
> The reason for this is that it's?not clear what SA exactly means. For
> instance in the context of building archetype-based GUI- stubs, forms etc.
> in proprietary systems. As a consequence it could be possible that companies
> are forced - unwillingly - to open up the source of their proprietary
> systems. It will take years and many court cases, in different countries, to
> sort this out. Until then (the large) companies will stay away from openEHR.
> This problem can be avoided completely by dropping the SA requirement.
>
> So I guess the first question is: who has a solid argument against Erik's
> argument.
> The second question is: what are the exact benefits of the SA requirement
> and are they worth the risk of companies not using openEHR at all (presuming
> that's a real risk).
>
> Cheers,
> Stef
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>
>



-- 

Timothy Cook, MSc
LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook
Skype ID == timothy.cook
Academic.Edu Profile: http://uff.academia.edu/TimothyCook

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Stef Verlinden]

Op 7 sep 2011, om 09:55 heeft Erik Sundvall het volgende geschreven:

> Do read that wikipage and follow the links there to the mail
> discussions. What is it that you think is missing or unclear in the
> arguments against SA?



That they're hidden in a lot of text form which one has to follow through 
hyperlinks and read even more text.

You stated somewhere - correctly - that companies want to avoid risk, similarly 
decision makers want to avoid reading through lengthy discussion (from which 
they have to draw there own conclusions:-) )


If I understand you correctly your main argument is that:

the share alike (SA) requirement will create a risk for lengthy juridical 
procedures - in every country they operate - for companies  who include openEHR 
archetypes or derivatives thereof in their systems. Since companies avoid risk, 
they  will choose other solutions without an SA requirement.

The reason for this is that it's not clear what SA exactly means. For instance 
in the context of building archetype-based GUI- stubs, forms etc. in 
proprietary systems. As a consequence it could be possible that companies are 
forced - unwillingly - to open up the source of their proprietary systems. It 
will take years and many court cases, in different countries, to sort this out. 
Until then (the large) companies will stay away from openEHR.

This problem can be avoided completely by dropping the SA requirement.


So I guess the first question is: who has a solid argument against Erik's 
argument.

The second question is: what are the exact benefits of the SA requirement and 
are they worth the risk of companies not using openEHR at all (presuming that's 
a real risk).


Cheers,

Stef



-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Sam Heard]

Hi Pablo and Shinji

Supporting localization both technical and operational needs to be included. 
The no language primacy principle is a real winner, different written forms of 
the same language is not covered as yet. 

How local groups run is another, clearly these can be national or context based.

Thanks for the input.

Cheers Sam

Sent from my phone

On 07/09/2011, at 2:38 AM, pablo pazos  wrote:

> Hi Shinji,
> 
> That's exactly what I tried to point in another mail to the lists: local and 
> regional openEHR organizations should be supported by openEHR and we need to 
> put it into the white paper.
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
> LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
> Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
> 
> > Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 19:13:45 +0300
> > Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question
> > From: skoba at moss.gr.jp
> > To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
> > 
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > I have been suffered by sever jet lag after long trip, while I have
> > been thinking about this new white
> > paper and our local activity. I could not find such localisation
> > activity in this white paper, but please
> > consider and mention about such local activity.
> > I would like to show these two proposals.
> > 1) Local activity support.
> > As a global standard, localisation to each country or area is
> > necessary. My three years experience
> > to implementation of the Ruby codes, archetypes and template, we need
> > lots of localisation efforts
> > for Japanese use. I think this experience may be available to localise
> > for other countries. East Asian
> > countries people is keen in openEHR development and their engagements
> > are promising for their
> > health care.
> > 
> > 2) Premature artefact repository
> > CKM provides us well-considered archetypes and templates. This is a
> > great knowledge resource
> > for mankind. However, to incubate archetype as a common concept takes
> > long time like vintage wine.
> > On the other hand, I need more agile movement for daily development. I
> > have developed about 50
> > archetypes and 6 templates. These artefacts are still premature to
> > evaluate on CKM, but I would
> > like to discuss about my artefacts on line with many people. Yes, it
> > will be a 99% junk repository,
> > but 1% diamond would be a precious for our community. As Major league
> > cannot exist without
> > minor leagues, I think CKM needs such minor artefacts groups.
> > I am preparing to share them on GitHub, because anyone can use
> > repository for each use by fork
> > and merge request is useful.
> > I think the licence of this repository would adopt CC-BY-SA, is this
> > OK, Erik and Ian?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Shinji KOBAYASHI(in Japan, a path of typhoon.)
> > 
> > 2011/9/6 Erik Sundvall :
> > > Thanks for replying Sam!
> > >
> > > Erik Wrote (to openEHR-technical at openehr.org):
> > >>> Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the old 
> > >>> board,
> > >>> or is it's current state just a suggestion by Sam?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  > > oceaninformatics.com> wrote:
> > >> [Sam Heard] The whitepaper was ratified by the participants in the 
> > >> planning
> > >> process, the current Board (Profs. Kalra, Ingram and myself) and the new
> > >> Transitional Board.
> > >
> > > This is a bit worrying for the period until a broader board can be
> > > elected. I was hoping that somebody within the new board would be
> > > interested enough and have time to take licensing issues and community
> > > feedback seriously, let's hope that the board does a bit more research
> > > and community dialogue before ratifying a new version of this
> > > whitepaper. Could somebody from the board please confirm that you'll
> > > take a serious look at this in the near future?
> > >
> > > Erik wrote:
> > >> What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the
> > >> suggested new structure with an elected board start?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  > > oceaninformatics.com> wrote:
> > >> [Sam Heard] I for one am very happy to express a date for elections if
> > >> organisations embrace these arrangements. Clearly if there is no 
> > >> i

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Erik Sundvall]

Hi Stef!

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 22:15, Stef Verlinden  wrote:
> Good that you bring up the SA + or - discussion again.

I wish I wouldn't have to. I'd rather focus on implementation and research.

> In order to make the
> best decision can you please provide us with these arguments

The arguments AGAINST SA have been publicly available for years on the
openEHR community wikipage set up by Thomas Beale for exactly that
purpose:

http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal

Do read that wikipage and follow the links there to the mail
discussions. What is it that you think is missing or unclear in the
arguments against SA?

The arguments FOR SA have, according to me at least, not been properly
explained publicly, but some argument has obviously been strong
somehow behind the locked doors in board discussions.

Clarification from Sam and the board has been sought for several
years, e.g. in the followup questions directed to Sam since
04-Jun-2010 at 
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal?focusedCommentId=13041696#comment-13041696

>and, if possible, with the names of those companies/organisations.

No, because:
1. I don't know if it was said in confidence or not
2. It's about time they, and all other openEHR-related
companies/organisations, engage themselves in the future of openEHR
and figure out their possible positions in this ecosystem. Until now
there has not been a proper chance for them to engage on the same
premises as Ocean Informatics and UCL, but now it's about time to wake
up :-)

Best regards,
Erik Sundvall
erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Ian McNicoll]

Hi Diego,

I have responded to your comments on the Clinical list under

openEHR Transition: Community Knowledge repository

as I think this a topic which properly belongs there and absolutely
merits further discussion.

Regards,
Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
office +44 (0)1536 414 994
fax +44 (0)1536 516317
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
skype ianmcnicoll
ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com

Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK
openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge
Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org




On 6 September 2011 17:24, Diego Bosc?  wrote:
> Good to hear about you! I hope everything is ok in Japan.
> I would encourage you to put the archetypes on the CKM anyway, as I would
> say that most of the available archetypes on the repository are in the
> same situation as your archetypes (the implicit 'use under your own
> responsibility')
>
> 2011/9/6 Shinji KOBAYASHI :
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I have been suffered by sever jet lag after long trip, while I have
>> been thinking about this new white
>> paper and our local activity. I could not find such localisation
>> activity in this white paper, but please
>> consider and mention about such local activity.
>> I would like to show these two proposals.
>> 1) Local activity support.
>> As a global standard, localisation to each country or area is
>> necessary. ?My three years experience
>> to implementation of the Ruby codes, archetypes and template, we need
>> lots of localisation efforts
>> for Japanese use. I think this experience may be available to localise
>> for other countries. East Asian
>> countries people is keen in openEHR development and their engagements
>> are promising for their
>> health care.
>>
>> 2) ?Premature artefact repository
>> CKM provides us well-considered archetypes and templates. This is a
>> great knowledge resource
>> for mankind. However, to incubate archetype as a common concept takes
>> long time like vintage wine.
>> On the other hand, I need more agile movement for daily development. I
>> have developed about 50
>> archetypes and 6 templates. These artefacts are still premature to
>> evaluate on CKM, but I would
>> like to discuss about my artefacts on line with many people. Yes, it
>> will be a 99% junk repository,
>> but 1% diamond would be a precious for our community. As Major league
>> cannot exist without
>> minor leagues, I think CKM needs such minor artefacts groups.
>> I am preparing to share them on GitHub, because anyone can use
>> repository for each use by fork
>> and merge request is useful.
>> I think the licence of this repository would adopt CC-BY-SA, is this
>> OK, Erik and Ian?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Shinji KOBAYASHI(in Japan, a path of typhoon.)
>>
>> 2011/9/6 Erik Sundvall :
>>> Thanks for replying Sam!
>>>
>>> Erik Wrote (to openEHR-technical at openehr.org):
> Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the old 
> board,
> or is it's current state just a suggestion by Sam?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  
>>> wrote:
 [Sam Heard] The whitepaper was ratified by the participants in the planning
 process, the current Board (Profs. Kalra, Ingram and myself) and the new
 Transitional Board.
>>>
>>> This is a bit worrying for the period until a broader board can be
>>> elected. I was hoping that somebody within the new board would be
>>> interested enough and have time to take licensing issues and community
>>> feedback seriously, let's hope that the board does a bit more research
>>> and community dialogue before ratifying a new version of this
>>> whitepaper. Could somebody from the board please confirm that you'll
>>> take a serious look at this in the near future?
>>>
>>> Erik wrote:
 What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the
 suggested new structure with an elected board start?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  
>>> wrote:
 [Sam Heard] I for one am very happy to express a date for elections if
 organisations embrace these arrangements. Clearly if there is no interest 
 in
 participating from industry or organisations then we would have to think
 again. I suspect we will then move to election of the Board by Members but
 it is our wish to provide a means of determining the governance for
 openEHR?s key sponsors. The aim is to balance the Members with governance
 from the funders and sponsors. Some may prefer a democratic organisation 
 top
 to bottom; we do not think this will achieve the best results.
>>>
>>> So there is no absolute end date set. :-(
>>>
>>> The "if organisations embrace these arrangements" part is worrying,
>>> especially since we already have seen failed attempts at getting
>>> buy-in from "organisations".
>>>
>>> Can't you set an absolute latest date (e.g. at the very latest
>>> December 31, 2012) when the new arrangements will start no matter if
>>> big organisations h

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Stef Verlinden]

Hi Eric,

Good that you bring up the SA + or - discussion again. In order to make the 
best decision can you please provide us with these arguments and, if possible, 
with the names of those companies/organisations.

Cheers,

Stef


Op 6 sep 2011, om 16:51 heeft Erik Sundvall het volgende geschreven:

>  I have heard serious arguments in more than
> one country where companies/organisations are not wanting to use
> openEHR archetypes partly because of the SA licencing issue. 

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Shinji KOBAYASHI]

Hi All,

I have been suffered by sever jet lag after long trip, while I have
been thinking about this new white
paper and our local activity. I could not find such localisation
activity in this white paper, but please
consider and mention about such local activity.
I would like to show these two proposals.
1) Local activity support.
As a global standard, localisation to each country or area is
necessary.  My three years experience
to implementation of the Ruby codes, archetypes and template, we need
lots of localisation efforts
for Japanese use. I think this experience may be available to localise
for other countries. East Asian
countries people is keen in openEHR development and their engagements
are promising for their
health care.

2)  Premature artefact repository
CKM provides us well-considered archetypes and templates. This is a
great knowledge resource
for mankind. However, to incubate archetype as a common concept takes
long time like vintage wine.
On the other hand, I need more agile movement for daily development. I
have developed about 50
archetypes and 6 templates. These artefacts are still premature to
evaluate on CKM, but I would
like to discuss about my artefacts on line with many people. Yes, it
will be a 99% junk repository,
but 1% diamond would be a precious for our community. As Major league
cannot exist without
minor leagues, I think CKM needs such minor artefacts groups.
I am preparing to share them on GitHub, because anyone can use
repository for each use by fork
and merge request is useful.
I think the licence of this repository would adopt CC-BY-SA, is this
OK, Erik and Ian?

Cheers,
Shinji KOBAYASHI(in Japan, a path of typhoon.)

2011/9/6 Erik Sundvall :
> Thanks for replying Sam!
>
> Erik Wrote (to openEHR-technical at openehr.org):
>>> Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the old board,
>>> or is it's current state just a suggestion by Sam?
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  
> wrote:
>> [Sam Heard] The whitepaper was ratified by the participants in the planning
>> process, the current Board (Profs. Kalra, Ingram and myself) and the new
>> Transitional Board.
>
> This is a bit worrying for the period until a broader board can be
> elected. I was hoping that somebody within the new board would be
> interested enough and have time to take licensing issues and community
> feedback seriously, let's hope that the board does a bit more research
> and community dialogue before ratifying a new version of this
> whitepaper. Could somebody from the board please confirm that you'll
> take a serious look at this in the near future?
>
> Erik wrote:
>> What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the
>> suggested new structure with an elected board start?
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  
> wrote:
>> [Sam Heard] I for one am very happy to express a date for elections if
>> organisations embrace these arrangements. Clearly if there is no interest in
>> participating from industry or organisations then we would have to think
>> again. I suspect we will then move to election of the Board by Members but
>> it is our wish to provide a means of determining the governance for
>> openEHR?s key sponsors. The aim is to balance the Members with governance
>> from the funders and sponsors. Some may prefer a democratic organisation top
>> to bottom; we do not think this will achieve the best results.
>
> So there is no absolute end date set. :-(
>
> The "if organisations embrace these arrangements" part is worrying,
> especially since we already have seen failed attempts at getting
> buy-in from "organisations".
>
> Can't you set an absolute latest date (e.g. at the very latest
> December 31, 2012) when the new arrangements will start no matter if
> big organisations have made use of the introductory offer of buying a
> position in the board? If not, we risk having an interim board
> forever, and we really don't need any more delays in the journey
> towards community-driven governance. If you get buy-in from the number
> of big players you want before that absolute end date then there would
> be nothing stopping you from doing the transition earlier than the
> "latest date".
>
> Erik wrote:
>> The thoughts behind the third point in the "Principles of licencing" are
>> understandable, but as stated over and over again, e.g. at...
>> http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal?focusedCommentId=13041696#comment-13041696
>> ...the SA part of CC-BY-SA won't help against copyright and patent abuse.
>> Only fighting possible upcoming bad patents in particular and bad patent
>> laws in general might save the openEHR community form patent abuse.
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  
> wrote:
>> [Sam Heard] If this is true then the SA part of the license has no value. If
>> this is true then I have not heard this before.
>
> I am very glad if you might have started to see the lack of value in
> SA for archety

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Diego Boscá]

Good to hear about you! I hope everything is ok in Japan.
I would encourage you to put the archetypes on the CKM anyway, as I would
say that most of the available archetypes on the repository are in the
same situation as your archetypes (the implicit 'use under your own
responsibility')

2011/9/6 Shinji KOBAYASHI :
> Hi All,
>
> I have been suffered by sever jet lag after long trip, while I have
> been thinking about this new white
> paper and our local activity. I could not find such localisation
> activity in this white paper, but please
> consider and mention about such local activity.
> I would like to show these two proposals.
> 1) Local activity support.
> As a global standard, localisation to each country or area is
> necessary. ?My three years experience
> to implementation of the Ruby codes, archetypes and template, we need
> lots of localisation efforts
> for Japanese use. I think this experience may be available to localise
> for other countries. East Asian
> countries people is keen in openEHR development and their engagements
> are promising for their
> health care.
>
> 2) ?Premature artefact repository
> CKM provides us well-considered archetypes and templates. This is a
> great knowledge resource
> for mankind. However, to incubate archetype as a common concept takes
> long time like vintage wine.
> On the other hand, I need more agile movement for daily development. I
> have developed about 50
> archetypes and 6 templates. These artefacts are still premature to
> evaluate on CKM, but I would
> like to discuss about my artefacts on line with many people. Yes, it
> will be a 99% junk repository,
> but 1% diamond would be a precious for our community. As Major league
> cannot exist without
> minor leagues, I think CKM needs such minor artefacts groups.
> I am preparing to share them on GitHub, because anyone can use
> repository for each use by fork
> and merge request is useful.
> I think the licence of this repository would adopt CC-BY-SA, is this
> OK, Erik and Ian?
>
> Cheers,
> Shinji KOBAYASHI(in Japan, a path of typhoon.)
>
> 2011/9/6 Erik Sundvall :
>> Thanks for replying Sam!
>>
>> Erik Wrote (to openEHR-technical at openehr.org):
 Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the old 
 board,
 or is it's current state just a suggestion by Sam?
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  
>> wrote:
>>> [Sam Heard] The whitepaper was ratified by the participants in the planning
>>> process, the current Board (Profs. Kalra, Ingram and myself) and the new
>>> Transitional Board.
>>
>> This is a bit worrying for the period until a broader board can be
>> elected. I was hoping that somebody within the new board would be
>> interested enough and have time to take licensing issues and community
>> feedback seriously, let's hope that the board does a bit more research
>> and community dialogue before ratifying a new version of this
>> whitepaper. Could somebody from the board please confirm that you'll
>> take a serious look at this in the near future?
>>
>> Erik wrote:
>>> What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the
>>> suggested new structure with an elected board start?
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  
>> wrote:
>>> [Sam Heard] I for one am very happy to express a date for elections if
>>> organisations embrace these arrangements. Clearly if there is no interest in
>>> participating from industry or organisations then we would have to think
>>> again. I suspect we will then move to election of the Board by Members but
>>> it is our wish to provide a means of determining the governance for
>>> openEHR?s key sponsors. The aim is to balance the Members with governance
>>> from the funders and sponsors. Some may prefer a democratic organisation top
>>> to bottom; we do not think this will achieve the best results.
>>
>> So there is no absolute end date set. :-(
>>
>> The "if organisations embrace these arrangements" part is worrying,
>> especially since we already have seen failed attempts at getting
>> buy-in from "organisations".
>>
>> Can't you set an absolute latest date (e.g. at the very latest
>> December 31, 2012) when the new arrangements will start no matter if
>> big organisations have made use of the introductory offer of buying a
>> position in the board? If not, we risk having an interim board
>> forever, and we really don't need any more delays in the journey
>> towards community-driven governance. If you get buy-in from the number
>> of big players you want before that absolute end date then there would
>> be nothing stopping you from doing the transition earlier than the
>> "latest date".
>>
>> Erik wrote:
>>> The thoughts behind the third point in the "Principles of licencing" are
>>> understandable, but as stated over and over again, e.g. at...
>>> http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal?focusedCommentId=13041696#comment-13041696
>>> ...the SA part of CC-BY-SA won't he

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Erik Sundvall]

Hi Ian!

Nice to have more than one single board member to actually discuss
with on the lists, this is already a great openEHR improvement!

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:07, Ian McNicoll
 wrote:
> The issue of CC-BY vs. CC-BY-SA has, of course, been extensively
> discussed and although the previous board took a decision to adopt SA,
> this is very much up for further discussion.

Good. Don't wait too long, there are several more interesting and fun
things to discuss and work with once the licensing stupidity is
solved.

>?Like many others, I did
> not get particularly involved in these discussions as it felt to me
> (perhaps incorrectly) to be a somewhat arcane and legalistic debate
> over a pretty fine point.

How can this be explained to clinicians of the board if what is
already on the wiki...
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal
...is not enough? Just read through that page and follow the links to
the messages in the cited mail debate dating years back, then ask
again if any points are still unclear.

Analogies can be misleading, but I'll try: What danger is "a pretty
fine point" of a malign cancer cell cluster in a human body, why so
much fuzz when you detect that?

Whenever I talk to software people they seem to immediately understand
the issue and importance of not having licence-contagious
(GPL/SA-like) code getting into the wrong parts of closed source
systems (if you want to allow closed source business models in your
ecosystem). Software people also understand that you simply can't
claim to publish something as CC-BY at the same time as you say that
some derivative works based on it should be CC-BY-SA, that's just
incredibly misguided and any governance body letting that slip through
is not to be completely trusted regarding license competence until
further educated...

If you don't have people on the board understanding software industry
basics, then the board is missing some vital competence and you should
make sure to either get that competence into the board or take the
advice of people like Tom Beale in these questions. Just as much as
you'd probably consider it wise to consult a clinician rather than a
software specialist regarding medical issues.

The "fine point" of licensing is fundamental for most companies before
deciding if they want to commit commercial resources into any
software-related project. I have heard serious arguments in more than
one country where companies/organisations are not wanting to use
openEHR archetypes partly because of the SA licencing issue. They may
have adopted the technical framework (RM etc) but are using their own
set of archetypes, and as long as they don't exchange data outside
their own systems then there is no perceived interoperability
problem... *sigh*

> What might be helpful to me and others would be some clear practical
> examples of the kind of scenario for which CC-BY-SA is thought to be
> required (rightly or wrongly).

Read that wikipage and the mail links again, there are several
examples in those texts where CC-BY-SA would likely reduce trust in
openEHR as a viable business option.

One major short term risk I see currently is that the foundation will
continue to be slow in response to licensing concerns and that as a
result competitors to the openEHR-hosted CKM will pop up using better
licenses (like pure CC-BY) for their non-openEHR-derived archetypes
and that the archetyping community gets fragmented and semantic
interoperability thus is reduced.

Another short term risk is that fewer commercial entities might be
interested in openEHR if there is a perceived lack of understanding of
software industry needs in the board.

But I think you find most of these arguments already on that wikipage
and in it's linked mail discussion.
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal

Do read it.

And the links.

Please.


// Erik

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Ian McNicoll]

Hi Erik,

As one of the new transitional board members I would like to thank you
for your comments and suggestions.

I don't think any of us would consider the White Paper as near to
being a finished article but there was consensus that, given the long
wait, it was good enough to go to the openEHR community for what I
hope will be robust discussion and criticism. As you say, there are a
number of issues which lack clarity and need further discussion.

The issue of CC-BY vs. CC-BY-SA has, of course, been extensively
discussed and although the previous board took a decision to adopt SA,
this is very much up for further discussion.  Like many others, I did
not get particularly involved in these discussions as it felt to me
(perhaps incorrectly) to be a somewhat arcane and legalistic debate
over a pretty fine point.

What might be helpful to me and others would be some clear practical
examples of the kind of scenario for which CC-BY-SA is thought to be
required (rightly or wrongly). As I understand it the debate centres
around whether this particular kind of 'misuse' can really be
controlled by CC-BY-SA without imposing inappropriate restrictions on
the corpus of work as a whole and sending the wrong message to
interested parties.

I did enjoy your reference to ''transitional arrangements' in North
Africa and the Miiddle East :-)

Much as I am attracted to the idea of participating in an  'interim'
25 year reign of terror, I am absolutely clear that the role of this
board is to manage the transitional period as rapidly as possible. I
think setting an end date is correct in principle but might be
difficult to judge in practice. Having said that, Dec 2012 feels to me
like a reasonable start point for discussion.

I think the White Paper correctly identifies the need to engage
institutional and commercial organisations directly in any new
governance arrangements. openEHR benefits in many ways from not being
an 'official' standards body,but the lack of organisational governance
has been a significant barrier to engagement of potential
institutional stakeholders. Whilst the core of openEHR activities
should, I think, definitely draw heavily on an Apache Foundation-like
approach, I am not convinced that this will be sufficient.

Balancing this requirement against the legitimate needs of ordinary
members will be challenging and I am sure you and others will have a
number of ideas in this area.

I expect there may well be some robust exchanges of opinion over the
coming weeks and months but I am very confident that as a community we
have a pretty coherent and unified sense of the end goal : An open
specification, backed up by open source software, and open clinical
knowledge artifacts, with as little encumbrance on further use as
possible, commercial or otherwise, and community-led development very
much in the mode of open-source software projects.

This does need to be anchored by much more inclusive governance
arrangements which blend the needs of community members and the 'open
ethos' above, with the organisational checks and balances that
institutional stakeholders will expect from a body which produces
'standard models'.

After a period where we have moved from specification to development
and now into real implementation, I am increasingly confident that
openEHR has a solid and exciting future. I am looking forward to the
challenge of helping get us into the right shape to support this
future.

Regards,

Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
office +44 (0)1536 414 994
fax +44 (0)1536 516317
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
skype ianmcnicoll
ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com

Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK
openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge
Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org




On 6 September 2011 10:05, Erik Sundvall  wrote:
> Thanks for replying Sam!
>
> Erik Wrote (to openEHR-technical at openehr.org):
>>> Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the old board,
>>> or is it's current state just a suggestion by Sam?
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  
> wrote:
>> [Sam Heard] The whitepaper was ratified by the participants in the planning
>> process, the current Board (Profs. Kalra, Ingram and myself) and the new
>> Transitional Board.
>
> This is a bit worrying for the period until a broader board can be
> elected. I was hoping that somebody within the new board would be
> interested enough and have time to take licensing issues and community
> feedback seriously, let's hope that the board does a bit more research
> and community dialogue before ratifying a new version of this
> whitepaper. Could somebody from the board please confirm that you'll
> take a serious look at this in the near future?
>
> Erik wrote:
>> What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the
>> suggested new structure with an elected board start?
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  
> wrote:
>> [Sam Heard

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[pablo pazos]

Hi Shinji,

That's exactly what I tried to point in another mail to the lists: local and 
regional openEHR organizations should be supported by openEHR and we need to 
put it into the white paper.

-- 
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos

> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 19:13:45 +0300
> Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question
> From: skoba at moss.gr.jp
> To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I have been suffered by sever jet lag after long trip, while I have
> been thinking about this new white
> paper and our local activity. I could not find such localisation
> activity in this white paper, but please
> consider and mention about such local activity.
> I would like to show these two proposals.
> 1) Local activity support.
> As a global standard, localisation to each country or area is
> necessary.  My three years experience
> to implementation of the Ruby codes, archetypes and template, we need
> lots of localisation efforts
> for Japanese use. I think this experience may be available to localise
> for other countries. East Asian
> countries people is keen in openEHR development and their engagements
> are promising for their
> health care.
> 
> 2)  Premature artefact repository
> CKM provides us well-considered archetypes and templates. This is a
> great knowledge resource
> for mankind. However, to incubate archetype as a common concept takes
> long time like vintage wine.
> On the other hand, I need more agile movement for daily development. I
> have developed about 50
> archetypes and 6 templates. These artefacts are still premature to
> evaluate on CKM, but I would
> like to discuss about my artefacts on line with many people. Yes, it
> will be a 99% junk repository,
> but 1% diamond would be a precious for our community. As Major league
> cannot exist without
> minor leagues, I think CKM needs such minor artefacts groups.
> I am preparing to share them on GitHub, because anyone can use
> repository for each use by fork
> and merge request is useful.
> I think the licence of this repository would adopt CC-BY-SA, is this
> OK, Erik and Ian?
> 
> Cheers,
> Shinji KOBAYASHI(in Japan, a path of typhoon.)
> 
> 2011/9/6 Erik Sundvall :
> > Thanks for replying Sam!
> >
> > Erik Wrote (to openEHR-technical at openehr.org):
> >>> Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the old 
> >>> board,
> >>> or is it's current state just a suggestion by Sam?
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  
> > wrote:
> >> [Sam Heard] The whitepaper was ratified by the participants in the planning
> >> process, the current Board (Profs. Kalra, Ingram and myself) and the new
> >> Transitional Board.
> >
> > This is a bit worrying for the period until a broader board can be
> > elected. I was hoping that somebody within the new board would be
> > interested enough and have time to take licensing issues and community
> > feedback seriously, let's hope that the board does a bit more research
> > and community dialogue before ratifying a new version of this
> > whitepaper. Could somebody from the board please confirm that you'll
> > take a serious look at this in the near future?
> >
> > Erik wrote:
> >> What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the
> >> suggested new structure with an elected board start?
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  
> > wrote:
> >> [Sam Heard] I for one am very happy to express a date for elections if
> >> organisations embrace these arrangements. Clearly if there is no interest 
> >> in
> >> participating from industry or organisations then we would have to think
> >> again. I suspect we will then move to election of the Board by Members but
> >> it is our wish to provide a means of determining the governance for
> >> openEHR?s key sponsors. The aim is to balance the Members with governance
> >> from the funders and sponsors. Some may prefer a democratic organisation 
> >> top
> >> to bottom; we do not think this will achieve the best results.
> >
> > So there is no absolute end date set. :-(
> >
> > The "if organisations embrace these arrangements" part is worrying,
> > especially since we already have seen failed attempts at getting
> > buy-in from "organisations".
> >
> > Can't you set an absolute latest date (e.g. at the very lates

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Sam Heard]

Thanks Pablo ? this is very helpful.

Sam

 

From: openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of pablo pazos
Sent: Tuesday, 6 September 2011 8:42 AM
To: openehr technical
Subject: RE: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

 

Hi,

I think Diego's point is to change this "... directly interacting with the
Clinical Knowledge Manager and equivalent repository and review tools"to
something like "... to interact with any Clinical Knowledge Manager through
a standard API (to be defined)".


-- 
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos

  _  

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 21:49:01 +0100
Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question
From: ian.mcnic...@oceaninformatics.com
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org

Hi Diego,

I understand from Sebastian that you have been exploring the current CKM web
services.  Do you think these might form the basis for an open repository
API or do you have any other comments or alternative suggestions? 

Ian

On Monday, 5 September 2011, Sam Heard 
wrote:
> Thanks Diego
>
> [Sam Heard]  This would be a step forward and would allow for slim and fat
> systems to offer the same basic calls.
>
>> > My suggestion is for the this point
>> "Begin an open source software project for tools, web-based if
>> possible, to author archetypes, templates and terminology reference
>> sets directly interacting with the Clinical Knowledge Manager and
>> equivalent repository and review tools"
>>
>> I agree with the first part (create web-based open source tools), but
>> I think that the second part should be clarified. We should define a
>> basic API to access repositories, to avoid doing ad-hoc
>> implementations for each one of the possible repositories
>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>

-- 
Dr Ian McNicoll
office +44 (0)1536 414 994
fax +44 (0)1536 516317
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
skype ianmcnicoll
ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com

Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK
openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge
Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
BCS Primary Health Care  www.phcsg.org


___ openEHR-technical mailing
list openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110906/0d940784/attachment.html>

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Erik Sundvall]

Thanks for replying Sam!

Erik Wrote (to openEHR-technical at openehr.org):
>> Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the old board,
>> or is it's current state just a suggestion by Sam?

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  
wrote:
> [Sam Heard] The whitepaper was ratified by the participants in the planning
> process, the current Board (Profs. Kalra, Ingram and myself) and the new
> Transitional Board.

This is a bit worrying for the period until a broader board can be
elected. I was hoping that somebody within the new board would be
interested enough and have time to take licensing issues and community
feedback seriously, let's hope that the board does a bit more research
and community dialogue before ratifying a new version of this
whitepaper. Could somebody from the board please confirm that you'll
take a serious look at this in the near future?

Erik wrote:
> What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the
> suggested new structure with an elected board start?

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  
wrote:
> [Sam Heard] I for one am very happy to express a date for elections if
> organisations embrace these arrangements. Clearly if there is no interest in
> participating from industry or organisations then we would have to think
> again. I suspect we will then move to election of the Board by Members but
> it is our wish to provide a means of determining the governance for
> openEHR?s key sponsors. The aim is to balance the Members with governance
> from the funders and sponsors. Some may prefer a democratic organisation top
> to bottom; we do not think this will achieve the best results.

So there is no absolute end date set. :-(

The "if organisations embrace these arrangements" part is worrying,
especially since we already have seen failed attempts at getting
buy-in from "organisations".

Can't you set an absolute latest date (e.g. at the very latest
December 31, 2012) when the new arrangements will start no matter if
big organisations have made use of the introductory offer of buying a
position in the board? If not, we risk having an interim board
forever, and we really don't need any more delays in the journey
towards community-driven governance. If you get buy-in from the number
of big players you want before that absolute end date then there would
be nothing stopping you from doing the transition earlier than the
"latest date".

Erik wrote:
> The thoughts behind the third point in the "Principles of licencing" are
> understandable, but as stated over and over again, e.g. at...
> http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal?focusedCommentId=13041696#comment-13041696
> ...the SA part of CC-BY-SA won't help against copyright and patent abuse.
> Only fighting possible upcoming bad patents in particular and bad patent
> laws in general might save the openEHR community form patent abuse.

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard  
wrote:
> [Sam Heard] If this is true then the SA part of the license has no value. If
> this is true then I have not heard this before.

I am very glad if you might have started to see the lack of value in
SA for archetypes. Using pure CC-BY (for both archetypes AND
specifications) would make the first six points under "Principles of
licensing" unnecessary and reduce confusion.

At the same time I am very worried about the totally amazing
information blocking filter you must have built in if you have "not
heard" this argument before. Several people have been questioning your
reasoning on this very point for years!

On the official openEHR-wikipage set up for this particular question
when community feedback was requested...
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal
...you have several people (including Tom Beale) in clear text saying
that CC-BY-SA will NOT protect against patent attacks. (Scroll down to
the heading "Discussion summaries regarding CC-BY versus CC-BY-SA for
content models".)

How on earth could you and the entire board miss that when writing up
the draft for the transition whitepaper and when making earlier
license decisions?

One thing that however is very efficient in fighting patent trolls is
"prior art". Thus one of the best protections regarding archetypes
etc. is to have as much as possible of development completely public,
indexed and archived by trusted sites (like http://www.archive.org/).
This means always making sure to allow enough search engines and not
requiring login in order to read archetype discussions and thoughts in
development repositories (things like the CKM). The earlier date the
mention of an idea can be traced back to, the more patent claims it
will protect against.

Best Regards,
Erik Sundvall
erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733

P.s. I agree with Pablo & Diego that we need to talk about
communication between several repositories, not just discuss the
current openEHR-hosted CKM

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Ian McNicoll]

Hi Pablo,

I agree with your and Diego's suggested change. That was the intended
meaning of the original statement but yours expresses this more
clearly.

I was just interested in Diego's actual experience with the CKM
web-services as the basis for a generic API.


Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
office +44 (0)1536 414 994
fax +44 (0)1536 516317
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
skype ianmcnicoll
ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com

Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK
openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge
Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org




On 6 September 2011 00:11, pablo pazos  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think Diego's point is to change this "... directly interacting with the
> Clinical Knowledge Manager and equivalent repository and review tools"to
> something like "... to interact with any Clinical Knowledge Manager through
> a standard API (to be defined)".
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
> LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
> Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
>
> ____________
> Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 21:49:01 +0100
> Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question
> From: Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com
> To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
>
> Hi Diego,
>
> I understand from Sebastian that you have been exploring the current CKM web
> services. ?Do you think these might form the basis for an open repository
> API or do you have any other comments or alternative suggestions?
>
> Ian
>
> On Monday, 5 September 2011, Sam Heard 
> wrote:
>> Thanks Diego
>>
>> [Sam Heard] ?This would be a step forward and would allow for slim and fat
>> systems to offer the same basic calls.
>>
>>> > My suggestion is for the this point
>>> "Begin an open source software project for tools, web-based if
>>> possible, to author archetypes, templates and terminology reference
>>> sets directly interacting with the Clinical Knowledge Manager and
>>> equivalent repository and review tools"
>>>
>>> I agree with the first part (create web-based open source tools), but
>>> I think that the second part should be clarified. We should define a
>>> basic API to access repositories, to avoid doing ad-hoc
>>> implementations for each one of the possible repositories
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>>
>
> --
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> office +44 (0)1536 414 994
> fax +44 (0)1536 516317
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> skype ianmcnicoll
> ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com
>
> Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK
> openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge
> Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
> BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org
>
>
> ___ openEHR-technical mailing
> list openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>
>

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Sam Heard]

Thanks Diego

[Sam Heard]  This would be a step forward and would allow for slim and fat
systems to offer the same basic calls.

> > My suggestion is for the this point
> "Begin an open source software project for tools, web-based if
> possible, to author archetypes, templates and terminology reference
> sets directly interacting with the Clinical Knowledge Manager and
> equivalent repository and review tools"
> 
> I agree with the first part (create web-based open source tools), but
> I think that the second part should be clarified. We should define a
> basic API to access repositories, to avoid doing ad-hoc
> implementations for each one of the possible repositories

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Sam Heard]

Hi Erik

 

Plans seem to take some promising directions even though that whitepaper
at...

http://www.openehr.org:/openehr/321-OE/version/default/part/AttachmentDa
ta/data/openEHR%20Foundation%20moving%20forward.pdf

...still needs some serious editing in order to better strengthen trust in
openEHRs future.

 

[Sam Heard] Getting the balance of top down governance and sponsorship and
bottom up participation and 'ownership' is difficult and we have worked hard
to get it right. This paper is seeking to set the scene and morph into one
or more clear statements of intent. 


1. First a procedural question:
Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the old board,
or is it's current state just a suggestion by Sam? 

[Sam Heard] The whitepaper was ratified by the participants in the planning
process, the current Board (Profs. Kalra, Ingram and myself) and the new
Transitional Board.

I know for sure that some people in the acknowledgements...

> Acknowledgements: Thank you to David Ingram, Dipak Kalra, Thomas Beale,
> Martin van der Meer and Tony Shannon for assisting in the planning.

...would likely object to part of it's current content.

[Sam Heard] It is obvious that there will be parts of the document that are
not considered ideal by all the participants in its development. These have
been thrashed out and we have presented the best first cut.

2. A second procedural question:
What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the
suggested new structure with an elected board start? That date seems to be
missing in the mail and in the document, but having an end date is very
likely important for building trust in any kind of stated interim governance
system (ask the people in the middle east and northern Africa...).

[Sam Heard] I for one am very happy to express a date for elections if
organisations embrace these arrangements. Clearly if there is no interest in
participating from industry or organisations then we would have to think
again. I suspect we will then move to election of the Board by Members but
it is our wish to provide a means of determining the governance for
openEHR's key sponsors. The aim is to balance the Members with governance
from the funders and sponsors. Some may prefer a democratic organisation top
to bottom; we do not think this will achieve the best results.

I am interested in the views of Members.

3. A document content change suggestion:
Remove the CC-BY-SA part in the licencing discussion (page 5) since it makes
the document authors and anybody ratifying it look incompetent. Saying that
original things are CC-BY and that derivative models should be CC-BY-SA is
just plain stupid. Then the originals are NOT CC-BY. It's just as silly as
saying that a piece of open source code is licenced under Apache II licence
but that any derivative code must be licenced under GPL... 

[Sam Heard] The point you are making I think refers to:

---

Clinical Models

Archetypes, Templates and Terminology subsets developed by the community

Creative Commons for organisational and individual use. CC-BY-(SA) The Share
Alike (SA) is specifically applied to derived archetypes and templates only.

---

[Sam Heard] The text may not be sufficiently clear but the intent is.  We
are drawing attention to the fact that the intent is that the SA part of the
license is only applied to derived archetypes and templates. That is, it is
a CC-BY-SA license with specific exclusion of all derivations except
archetypes and templates. This means that anyone creating a template from
archetypes cannot claim that they own it and no one else can use or copy it.
They can keep it secret. I apologise if this is not clear.

The thoughts behind the third point in the "Principles of licencing" are
understandable, but as stated over and over again, e.g. at...

http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Propos
al?focusedCommentId=13041696#comment-13041696 

...the SA part of CC-BY-SA won't help against copyright and patent abuse.
Only fighting possible upcoming bad patents in particular and bad patent
laws in general might save the openEHR community form patent abuse.

[Sam Heard] If this is true then the SA part of the license has no value. If
this is true then I have not heard this before.

 

A more practical way is to enforce good licencing (e.g. CC-BY) upon import
of archetypes and archetyped data in real systems and tools. That will at
the same time protect against anybody sneaking in badly licenced stuff that
is not derived from openEHR original archetypes (something that a CC-BY-SA
scheme never will be able to protect against.) 

[Sam Heard] The intent is not to stop the use of any archetypes whatsoever,
for any purpose. It is not policing. Rather , the intent is to ensure that
people cannot stop anyone using an archetype or template without any
recourse to action by others.

 

There are many other interesting things to discuss and clarify in the white
paper, 

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Diego Boscá]

In my experience. you only need 2 or 3 CKM web services: search (with
different kinds of search) & download. I think those two are really
basic, and are also the ones that every repository must have (and
depending on the application, those are enough). Some of the other web
services (like freemind generation) are useful, but I wouldn't put
them in a generic API.

2011/9/5 Ian McNicoll :
> Hi Diego,
>
> I understand from Sebastian that you have been exploring the current CKM web
> services. ?Do you think these might form the basis for an open repository
> API or do you have any other comments or alternative suggestions?
>
> Ian
>
> On Monday, 5 September 2011, Sam Heard 
> wrote:
>> Thanks Diego
>>
>> [Sam Heard] ?This would be a step forward and would allow for slim and fat
>> systems to offer the same basic calls.
>>
>>> > My suggestion is for the this point
>>> "Begin an open source software project for tools, web-based if
>>> possible, to author archetypes, templates and terminology reference
>>> sets directly interacting with the Clinical Knowledge Manager and
>>> equivalent repository and review tools"
>>>
>>> I agree with the first part (create web-based open source tools), but
>>> I think that the second part should be clarified. We should define a
>>> basic API to access repositories, to avoid doing ad-hoc
>>> implementations for each one of the possible repositories
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>>
>
> --
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> office +44 (0)1536 414 994
> fax +44 (0)1536 516317
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> skype ianmcnicoll
> ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com
>
> Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK
> openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge
> Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
> BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>
>

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Ian McNicoll]

Hi Diego,

I understand from Sebastian that you have been exploring the current CKM web
services.  Do you think these might form the basis for an open repository
API or do you have any other comments or alternative suggestions?

Ian

On Monday, 5 September 2011, Sam Heard 
wrote:
> Thanks Diego
>
> [Sam Heard]  This would be a step forward and would allow for slim and fat
> systems to offer the same basic calls.
>
>> > My suggestion is for the this point
>> "Begin an open source software project for tools, web-based if
>> possible, to author archetypes, templates and terminology reference
>> sets directly interacting with the Clinical Knowledge Manager and
>> equivalent repository and review tools"
>>
>> I agree with the first part (create web-based open source tools), but
>> I think that the second part should be clarified. We should define a
>> basic API to access repositories, to avoid doing ad-hoc
>> implementations for each one of the possible repositories
>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>

-- 
Dr Ian McNicoll
office +44 (0)1536 414 994
fax +44 (0)1536 516317
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
skype ianmcnicoll
ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com

Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK
openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge
Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
BCS Primary Health Care  www.phcsg.org
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[pablo pazos]

Hi,

I think Diego's point is to change this "... directly interacting with the 
Clinical Knowledge Manager and equivalent repository and review tools"to 
something like "... to interact with any Clinical Knowledge Manager through a 
standard API (to be defined)".


-- 
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos

Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 21:49:01 +0100
Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question
From: ian.mcnic...@oceaninformatics.com
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org

Hi Diego,

I understand from Sebastian that you have been exploring the current CKM web 
services.  Do you think these might form the basis for an open repository API 
or do you have any other comments or alternative suggestions? 


Ian

On Monday, 5 September 2011, Sam Heard  
wrote:
> Thanks Diego
>
> [Sam Heard]  This would be a step forward and would allow for slim and fat

> systems to offer the same basic calls.
>
>> > My suggestion is for the this point
>> "Begin an open source software project for tools, web-based if
>> possible, to author archetypes, templates and terminology reference

>> sets directly interacting with the Clinical Knowledge Manager and
>> equivalent repository and review tools"
>>
>> I agree with the first part (create web-based open source tools), but

>> I think that the second part should be clarified. We should define a
>> basic API to access repositories, to avoid doing ad-hoc
>> implementations for each one of the possible repositories
>

>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical

>

-- 
Dr Ian McNicoll
office +44 (0)1536 414 994
fax +44 (0)1536 516317
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
skype ianmcnicoll
ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com


Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK
openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge
Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

BCS Primary Health Care  www.phcsg.org



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical 
  
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110905/d139ddbb/attachment.html>

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Diego Boscá]

My suggestion is for the this point
"Begin an open source software project for tools, web-based if
possible, to author archetypes, templates and terminology reference
sets directly interacting with the Clinical Knowledge Manager and
equivalent repository and review tools"

I agree with the first part (create web-based open source tools), but
I think that the second part should be clarified. We should define a
basic API to access repositories, to avoid doing ad-hoc
implementations for each one of the possible repositories

2011/9/5 Erik Sundvall :
> Hi!
> Kudos for moving forward!
>
> Plans seem to take some promising directions even though that whitepaper
> at...
> http://www.openehr.org:/openehr/321-OE/version/default/part/AttachmentData/data/openEHR%20Foundation%20moving%20forward.pdf
> ...still needs some serious editing in order to better strengthen trust in
> openEHRs future.
> 1. First a procedural question:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 03:00, Sam Heard (forwarded via Thomas Beale) wrote:
>> I am writing on behalf of the new Transitional Board of openEHR to share
>> our
>> plans to take openEHR to a new level of operations...
>
> Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the old board,
> or is it's current state just a suggestion by Sam? I know for sure that some
> people in the acknowledgements...
>
>> Acknowledgements: Thank you to David Ingram, Dipak Kalra, Thomas Beale,
>> Martin van der Meer and Tony Shannon for assisting in the planning.
>
> ...would likely object to part of it's current content.
>
> 2. A second procedural question:
> What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the
> suggested new structure with an elected board start? That date seems to be
> missing in the mail and in the document, but having an end date is very
> likely important for building trust in any kind of stated interim governance
> system (ask the people in the middle east and northern Africa...).
>
> 3. A document content change suggestion:
> Remove the CC-BY-SA part in the licencing discussion (page 5) since it makes
> the document authors and anybody ratifying it look incompetent. Saying that
> original things are CC-BY and that derivative models should be CC-BY-SA is
> just plain stupid. Then the originals are NOT CC-BY. It's just as silly as
> saying that a piece of open source code is licenced under Apache II licence
> but that any derivative code must be licenced under GPL...
>
> The thoughts behind the third point in the "Principles of licencing" are
> understandable, but as stated over and over again, e.g. at...
> http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal?focusedCommentId=13041696#comment-13041696
> ...the SA part of CC-BY-SA won't help against copyright and patent abuse.
> Only fighting possible upcoming bad patents in particular and bad patent
> laws in general might save the openEHR community form patent abuse.
> A more practical way is to enforce good licencing (e.g. CC-BY) upon import
> of archetypes and archetyped data in real systems and tools. That will at
> the same time protect against anybody sneaking in badly licenced stuff that
> is not derived from openEHR original archetypes (something that a?CC-BY-SA
> scheme never will be able to protect against.)
> There are many other interesting things to discuss and clarify in the white
> paper, but let's start here :-)
> Again, thanks for working towards a more understandable openEHR foundation.
> Best regards,
> Erik Sundvall
> erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>
>

openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question

[Erik Sundvall]

Hi!

Kudos for moving forward!

Plans seem to take some promising directions even though that whitepaper
at...
http://www.openehr.org:/openehr/321-OE/version/default/part/AttachmentData/data/openEHR%20Foundation%20moving%20forward.pdf
...still needs some serious editing in order to better strengthen trust in
openEHRs future.

*1. First a procedural question:*
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 03:00, Sam Heard (forwarded via Thomas Beale) wrote:
> I am writing on behalf of the new Transitional Board of openEHR to share
our
> plans to take openEHR to a new level of operations...

Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the old board,
or is it's current state just a suggestion by Sam? I know for sure that some
people in the acknowledgements...

> Acknowledgements: Thank you to David Ingram, Dipak Kalra, Thomas Beale,
> Martin van der Meer and Tony Shannon for assisting in the planning.

...would likely object to part of it's current content.

*2. A second procedural question:*
What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the
suggested new structure with an elected board start? That date seems to be
missing in the mail and in the document, but having an end date is very
likely important for building trust in any kind of stated interim governance
system (ask the people in the middle east and northern Africa...).

*3. A document content change suggestion:*
Remove the CC-BY-SA part in the licencing discussion (page 5) since it makes
the document authors and anybody ratifying it look incompetent. Saying that
original things are CC-BY and that derivative models should be CC-BY-SA is
just plain stupid. Then the originals are NOT CC-BY. It's just as silly as
saying that a piece of open source code is licenced under Apache II licence
but that any derivative code must be licenced under GPL...

The thoughts behind the third point in the "Principles of licencing" are
understandable, but as stated over and over again, e.g. at...
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal?focusedCommentId=13041696#comment-13041696

...the SA part of CC-BY-SA won't help against copyright and patent abuse.
Only fighting possible upcoming bad patents in particular and bad patent
laws in general might save the openEHR community form patent abuse.

A more practical way is to enforce good licencing (e.g. CC-BY) upon import
of archetypes and archetyped data in real systems and tools. That will at
the same time protect against anybody sneaking in badly licenced stuff that
is not derived from openEHR original archetypes (something that a CC-BY-SA
scheme never will be able to protect against.)

There are many other interesting things to discuss and clarify in the white
paper, but let's start here :-)

Again, thanks for working towards a more understandable openEHR foundation.

Best regards,
Erik Sundvall
erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/  Tel: +46-13-286733
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: