Microsoft/NHS common health interface and openEHR datatypes
I am not 100% certain on this but after a conversation with some people inside the NHS NPfiT program it does seem that the CUI documentation maybe licensed in such a way as to not allow for open implementation. This probably needs more legal research before we go off adopting it. ??? Cheers, Tim On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 06:59 +0100, Sam Heard wrote: Hi Gabriele I know that some people within the NHS CUI group are absolutely committed to a Java version. We are hoping to work with the team to do a full open source .Net implementation of the controls which should be a good basis for the Java work. I hope someone from that work contacts you via this email but if not let me know. Cheers, Sam gabriele.it wrote: Hi Sam, I'm interested to an Java implementation based on Microsoft Health CUI, do you know if already exist projects with this goal? Many thanks, Gabriele -- Dr Sam Heard Chief Executive Officer Ocean Informatics Director, openEHR Foundation Senior Visiting Research Fellow, University College London Aus: +61 4 1783 8808 UK: +44 77 9871 0980 ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical -- Timothy Cook, MSc Health Informatics Research Development Services LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook Skype ID == timothy.cook ** *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* ** -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080120/60ccf0b9/attachment.asc
Microsoft/NHS common health interface and openEHR datatypes
Hi Sam and Thomas and others! Just a quick followup - a while ago you mentioned that you were thinking of uploading your Microsoft code to the openEHR website. Are you still considering doing this? I would absolutely like to see what you have done. Even if you could only upload a few samples to illustrate what is working well, and what areas are not working so well, that would be excellent. Regards Gunther -Original Message- From: openehr-clinical-boun...@openehr.org [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:48 AM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Subject: Re: Microsoft/NHS common health interface and openEHR datatypes Grahame Grieve wrote: I'm a long way behind, and playing email catch up. just a technical clarification: last year - it is problematic, as it prevents you from using well-known bits of other open source code, because it is primarily designed to a) avoid encumbrance of the code by other licenses of any kind and b) ensure that changes to code in the Eclipse code base can be done without reference to anyone else. We couldn't even use it for the openEHR (GPL'd) java kernel because the latter uses libraries that wouldn't be allowed by the EPL. The EPL induction process is also painful - it takes weeks/months to get your code 'reviewed' by Eclipse people to certify it as 'unencumbered'...meanwhile it will have changed.. I don't think (a) is a property of the EPL license itself. But it is certainly exactly how the Eclipse Foundation vets code that will be posted to the official eclipse cvs. I'm not trying to be critical as such - its just that Rong found code that we would be prevented from using if we converted the license to EPL. In the end, I don't think I am really convinced by the need to have a special license for the Eclipse project; there are clearly some license that the code can't use, but it seems unrealistic to me to try and make it one. But prepared to be shown the light - thomas ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
Microsoft/NHS common health interface and openEHR datatypes
I don't think (a) is a property of the EPL license itself. But it is certainly exactly how the Eclipse Foundation vets code that will be posted to the official eclipse cvs. I'm not trying to be critical as such - its just that Rong found code that we would be prevented from using if we converted the license to EPL. yeah, this is not easy. (though as I said, it's not just converting to EPL, it's subjecting to the full eclipse processes) In the end, I don't think I am really convinced by the need to have a special license for the Eclipse project; there are clearly some license that the code can't use, but it seems unrealistic to me to try and make it one. But prepared to be shown the light well, I look at it this way: eclipse is a reliable proposition for everyone: no surprises. I doubt that we (kestral) could use the openEHR java kernel corporately because of GPL issues. I do not have the skills or the time to find out exactly what I can and cannot do without inadvertantly subjecting my corporate stuff to GPL. But if I use eclipse code (not just EPL), I know that appropriately skilled and highly motivated people have done this for me. So for a project to become eclipse, and to actually mean putting the code up on eclipse, it has to jump these hurdles. Why do this? pros: - will increase target market of the code substantially. however, while in tools market, the corporate benefits of eclipse in this regard are well recognised, I don't think there's the same brand penetration in the healthcare sector regarding Eclipse sanitising your code for you - will allow a full engagement between multiple communities, in particular, the community that is growing around eclipse cons: - have to jump the hurdle. It can be quite high and painful. The more mature the project, the more painful, (and possibly the pros are reduced here too) If I was you, I wouldn't be making the change right now either. I think that the correlation of forces will change in the future, and then I will ask you to re-evaluate. In the meantime, we are pursuing alternate pathways that will enable community collaboration with more flexibility about how the price is paid and when. There should be public announcements soon. Grahame
Microsoft/NHS common health interface and openEHR datatypes
Open-source or just open? What are the licensing arrangements for the Microsoft/NHS Common Health Interface controls? Obviously they depend on the Microsoft .NET platform (do they also work with Mono?), but are there additional licensing restrictions or limited access to the Common Health Interface controls themselves? This is what I had to sign up to when I registered ages ago.. in brief, no to open source (3.4.2.3.4) and no to mono (3.4.1) - I presume this is the same site from which the common control stuff would come. https://www.cui.nhs.uk/Pages/NHSCommonUserInterface.aspx --- 3.4 Use Rights 3.4.1 Use: You may install the software on any number of devices to design, develop and test your programs that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system. 3.4.2 Distributable Code: The software contains code that you are permitted to copy and distribute in programs you develop if you comply with the terms below: 3.4.2.1 Right to Use and Distribute. The code and text files listed below are Distributable Code. You may: 3.4.2.1.1 REDIST.TXT Files. Copy and distribute the object code form of code listed in REDIST.TXT files; 3.4.2.1.2 Sample Code: Modify the source code form of Sample Code for the sole purpose of designing, developing and testing your programs, and copy and distribute the object code form of your modified files; 3.4.2.1.3 Development Code: Modify the source code form of Development Code for the sole purpose of designing, developing and testing your programs, and copy and distribute the object code form of your modified files; 3.4.2.1.4 Third Party Distribution: Permit distributors of your programs to copy and distribute the Distributable Code in object code form as part of those programs; and 3.4.2.1.5 Use by End Users: Permit end users of your programs to use the Distributable Code as part of your programs. 3.4.2.2 Distribution Requirements. For any Distributable Code you distribute, you must: 3.4.2.2.1 add significant primary functionality to it in your programs; 3.4.2.2.2 only invoke the software via interfaces described in the software documentation; 3.4.2.2.3 distribute Distributable Code included in a setup program only as part of that setup program without modification; 3.4.2.2.4 require distributors and end users to agree to distribution or use terms that contain the same restrictions and disclaimers as are set out in this agreement; 3.4.2.2.5 display your valid copyright notice on your programs; and 3.4.2.2.6 indemnify, defend, without limitation and hold harmless the Secretary of State for Health and its suppliers, including Microsoft Limited and its affiliated companies (Microsoft), from any claims, including any applicable lawyers' fees, related to the distribution or use of your programs. 3.4.2.3 Distribution Restrictions. You may not: 3.4.2.3.1 alter any copyright, trademark or patent notice in the Distributable Code; 3.4.2.3.2 use the Secretary of State for Health's or Microsoft's trademarks in your programs' names or in a way that suggests your programs come from or are endorsed by the Secretary of State for Health or Microsoft; 3.4.2.3.3 include Distributable Code in malicious, deceptive or unlawful programs; or 3.4.2.3.4 modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. An Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that: (a) the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form, or (b) others have the right to modify it.
