Re: Advantage of ISO

Bert, my comments relate to software only, contributed by companies and other organisations at their own development expense. It has nothing to do with specifications, nor specification-related computational artefacts (grammars, XSDs, and the like). These are all issued by the foundation,

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 09-09-15 10:24, Thomas Beale wrote: I hope this is clearer. - thomas It sure is. I totally agree. Bert ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 09-09-15 04:20, Thomas Beale wrote: On 08/09/2015 21:55, Erik Sundvall wrote: Hi! ND on the specification documents is not a big or urgent problem if there are Apace 2 licenced computable artifacts like UML-files/descriptions of all classes, ADL/AQL grammars, openEHR term

Re: Advantage of ISO

Bert, I fail to see the origin of any ambiguity from within openEHR. The specifications have been free and open for 15 years, since 2000 (or soon thereafter, since some were issued around 2002/2003 for the first time, and some later). This has always been clearly stated even in the old

Re: Advantage of ISO

On Friday, September 04, 2015 18:55:02 Ian McNicoll wrote: > However, your use of 'proprietary' in this context is highly misleading, > particularly as it applies to phrases like 'proprietary standards' or > 'proprietary specifications'. > > I could equally use the phrase 'proprietary

Re: Advantage of ISO

Hi Bert, My primary concern was to establish that the use of 'proprietary' in the context of openEHR, particularly in the context of specifications / archetypes but also in terms of governance, gives the impression (perhaps unintended), that a) the specifications and archetypes are licensed

Re: Advantage of ISO

Hi Ian, thanks for your answer. I do not completely agree > My primary concern was to establish that the use of 'proprietary' in the > context of openEHR, particularly in the context of specifications / > archetypes but also in terms of governance, gives the impression (perhaps > unintended),

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 08/09/2015 21:55, Erik Sundvall wrote: Hi! ND on the specification documents is not a big or urgent problem if there are Apace 2 licenced computable artifacts like UML-files/descriptions of all classes, ADL/AQL grammars, openEHR term lists/vocabularies and other things needed for building

Re: Advantage of ISO

Hi Ian, thanks for your answer. I do not completely agree > My primary concern was to establish that the use of 'proprietary' in the > context of openEHR, particularly in the context of specifications / > archetypes but also in terms of governance, gives the impression (perhaps > unintended),

Re: Advantage of ISO

Sorry for sending it twice, that was an accident Bert On 08-09-15 16:52, Bert Verhees wrote: Hi Ian, thanks for your answer. I do not completely agree My primary concern was to establish that the use of 'proprietary' in the context of openEHR, particularly in the context of specifications

Re: Advantage of ISO

I understand the purpose of the ND, and I think, as you, that it is important. and all standards that are not registered by an SDO have this problem. So it is a commonly occurring problem, that is why Creative Commons has an answer for that. I think that works allright. I see no problem in the

Re: Advantage of ISO

Thanks Gerard, That is very positive and helpful. Would you consider adjusting to ‘ openEHR is a not-for-profit company established by UCL’ which I hope captures your reservations about single ownership without giving the impression that this is a 'for-profit 'company? Ian Dr Ian McNicoll

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 07-09-15 16:02, Ian McNicoll wrote: Thanks Gerard, That is very positive and helpful. Would you consider adjusting to ‘ openEHR is a not-for-profit company established by UCL’ which I hope captures your reservations about single ownership without giving the impression that this is a

Re: Advantage of ISO

Many thanks Gerard, Much appreciated, Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: i...@freshehr.com twitter: @ianmcnicoll Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. Director,

Re: Advantage of ISO

Can someone help to take me off the list. I have signed into the list and unsubscribe and still unsuccessful. On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Ian McNicoll wrote: > Thanks Gerard, > > That is very positive and helpful. Would you consider adjusting to ‘ > openEHR is a

Re: Advantage of ISO

Dear Ian, As I wrote you privately I promised to think over my use of words. Referring to my e-mail with the definition, as I used it, plus the quote from the openEHR website, it must have been clear that I was pointing at ownership of the openEHR organisation. I’m aware now, that

Re: Advantage of ISO

I will consider this. Gerard Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl > On 7 sep. 2015, at 16:02, Ian McNicoll wrote: > > Thanks Gerard, > > That is very positive and helpful. Would you consider adjusting to ‘ openEHR > is a not-for-profit company

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 07-09-15 16:15, Bert Verhees wrote: does he still think the word "proprietary" is appropriate for the specifications correction, must be: do you still think the word "proprietary" is appropriate for the specifications ___ openEHR-technical

Re: Advantage of ISO

Dear Ian, I wrote I will consider it. I can accept your proposition. It is factually the truth. Gerard Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl > On 7 sep. 2015, at 16:02, Ian McNicoll wrote: > > Thanks Gerard, > > That is very positive and

Re: Advantage of ISO

ND = No Derivatives and is the Creative Commons equivalent of what W3C has in their licence . It's just designed to prevent anyone republishing altered versions of the specifications /as the original specifications /- in other words forked

Re: Advantage of ISO

The ND on the specs, there must be a kind of protection. Brand protection could work, but must be registered in all countries of the world. You see the same problem at RFC's, they solved it like this, you cannot change them and publish them under the same name. In the case of RFC a changed

Re: Advantage of ISO

That is correct. Some NEN.CEN standards are free to obtain in the Netherlands because of a contract between the government and the SDO. Recently the ISO policy is to publish all informative parts of the standard but not the normative parts. Experts nominated by countries have a larger access

RE: Advantage of ISO

Again: you are explicitly ignoring availability and freedom to use arguments, the main point here... This is my last message on this discussion, I'll continue doing something more productive :) -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez http://cabolabs.com Subject: Re: Advantage of ISO From

Re: Advantage of ISO

I agree with you. > On Sep 4, 2015, at 3:28 PM, pablo pazos wrote: > > Again: you are explicitly ignoring availability and freedom to use arguments, > the main point here... > > This is my last message on this discussion, I'll continue doing something > more

Re: Advantage of ISO

Hi all, Gerard is quite correct that I raised this issue in the context of Bert's email because he had mentioned the problems of openEHR being perceived as 'proprietary', by some potential customers. Bert had referred to a StackOverflow question, where I had felt the need to edit Gerard's

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 04-09-15 19:55, Ian McNicoll wrote: I am happy to debate the relevant merits of the ISO vs. open-source approaches recognising The one does not exclude the other, I would say. But on second thought, does ISO prohibit giving a free license, or publishing the specs for free? I am not sure

Re: Advantage of ISO

I forgot to discuss/kill the "fear-of-patent" thought here. At Stackoverflow ( http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32010122/are-the-hl7-fhir-hl7-cda-cimi-openehr-and-iso13606-approaches-aiming-to-solve) I wrote: "The computable resources from openEHR are Apache 2 licensed and that licence

Re: Advantage of ISO

Thank you Ian, that was a very constructive contribution to the discussion. I had started writing a response with some of those thoughs: Since this issue of "ownership" keeps coming up, let's deal with it in a sensible and polite manner and get it over with even if it requires some time and

Re: Advantage of ISO

I was very active, 10 years ago, in the anti-software-patent-lobby in Europe. I spent several weeks talking to European members of Parliament. We won.  I made a presentation for Dutch members of the EP. http://www.rosa.nl/software_patenten/ It is in Dutch. I made it quick and dirty in

Re: Advantage of ISO

FUD Fear Uncertainty Doubt This is an old technique for making people afraid. Microsoft was always "fudding" Linux. It is a marketing strategy. Thomas mentioned coaching bureaucrats, making them afraid. It happened before, and it still happens, at least in the Linux world.

Re: Advantage of ISO

The problem about IP ownership and openEHR is an long standing problem that has not been resolved sufficiently, until now. This is my personal opinion. Why now, if it is a long standing problem, why not five years ago, and why this sudden energy to harm the reputation of OpenEHR? If I

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 04-09-15 08:16, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: It is not a numbers game. Members/users need to own it. CEN, ISO, HL7, SNOMED, WHO, all have members that own the IP. These organizations are real Associations. It is already said, as argument against your position, numbers do not count,

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 04-09-15 08:16, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: It is not a numbers game. Members/users need to own it. CEN, ISO, HL7, SNOMED, WHO, all have members that own the IP. These organizations are real Associations. Which user owns ISO13606? They have to pay to read the standard, and quite much,

Re: Advantage of ISO

It is not a numbers game. Members/users need to own it. CEN, ISO, HL7, SNOMED, WHO, all have members that own the IP. These organizations are real Associations. Gerard > On Sep 3, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Seref Arikan > wrote: > > Thanks for your response. >

Re: Advantage of ISO

There is NO relationship between the two: AOM2.0 and IP ownership. I see no single problem when any actor contributes to the standard. OpenEHR has made significant contributions, for which we are all grateful. And I expect that openEHR will continue to do so. The problem about IP ownership and

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 04-09-15 08:16, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: It is not a numbers game. Members/users need to own it. CEN, ISO, HL7, SNOMED, WHO, all have members that own the IP. These organizations are real Associations. I noticed you only read the first three lines of an message, so I send you short

Re: Advantage of ISO

Thanks Bert and all, To me it was quite enlightening and pleasurable to see so many people chip in and defend openEHR in the last 24 hours or so. It couldn't have been clearer to me what you, Silje, Stef, Ian, Thomas, Koray, Pablo and Seref have said. Sebastian On 04.09.2015 08:48, Bert

Re: Advantage of ISO

ut that's not the point... you ignored > the true argument about availavility and constraints/freedom to use. > > Sent from my LG Mobile > -- Original message-- > From: Gerard Freriks (privé) > Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 04:07 > To: For openEHR technical discussions; > Subje

Re: Advantage of ISO

Again. Answer the question ‘Who owns the specifications of openEHR, looking at the quotes I provided? The answer is: UCL owns the IP rights and licensing conditions. Members of, participants in, openEHR gremia, do not. And that is why I call openEHR specifications proprietary. According to the

RE: Advantage of ISO

...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Bakke, Silje Ljosland Sent: Thursday, 3 September 2015 10:18 a.m. To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: RE: Advantage of ISO No. The Creative Commons licenses guarantees the free (as in beer) use and distribution of the specifications and the free (as in speech) use

Re: Advantage of ISO

Gerard, is there a relation between the introduction of AOM2.0, and the coincidence of the renewal process of ISO13606, which has the potential that AOM2.0 will be a part of the renewed ISO13606, and your strong effort to make us aware of your concern about IP risk in using OpenEHR related

Re: Advantage of ISO

So you are saying that you need a license to build an openehr implementation? That is very strange that several parties I know work without license except an open source license, and that for years. How do you explain that? Do you think the "owner" is sleeping? Should code24, marand, Pablo,

Re: Advantage of ISO

Gerard, you write "UCL owns the IP rights and licensing conditions. Members of, participants in, openEHR gremia, do not." Can you explain what you mean, what is the difference in rights between UCL and all those companies which are using it on an open source license? Which right does UCL have,

Re: Advantage of ISO

Greetings, Just to clarify my understanding of your understanding of the term: would you say HL7 and Snomed CT are proprietary ? On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 6:29 AM, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: > *What do I misunderstand?* > > The definition of ‘proprietary’ according to GOOGLE

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 03-09-15 09:10, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: openEHR has one owner. CEN and ISO have members (countries) that are, all together, the owner. This is not true, Gerard, ISO has a statement on its website, that there can be IP which is not known about. So, even an idea in a ISO standard can

RE: Advantage of ISO

...@luna.nl Subject: Re: Advantage of ISO Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:29:59 +0200 To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org What do I misunderstand? The definition of ‘proprietary’ according to GOOGLE is clear.proprietaryprəˈprʌɪət(ə)ri/adjectiveadjective: proprietary1. relating to an owner

Re: Advantage of ISO

I think that definitions are generally valid. > On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:38 AM, pablo pazos wrote: > > I think that definition doesn't apply to a standard / spec. IMO when we talk > about standards, we focus on the ability to use it and let others use it, and > the

Re: Advantage of ISO

As said, publishing Open Source does not protect against IP. The Open Source is just protection about the publishing itself, not about the ideas that are published. There are rumors, and there are things that can be done. For example, reasoning: - AOM1.4 has been an ISO standard for years, so

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 03-09-15 09:07, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: I think that definitions are generally valid. Gerard, I think you know, you be ignorant and warning at the same moment. I have good news for you (because ISO13606 is using parts of the AOM) and for all of us. There cannot any effective IP be

Re: Advantage of ISO

I think that it is NOT a misuse. openEHR has one owner. CEN and ISO have members (countries) that are, all together, the owner. This a huge difference, don’t you think? Gerard > On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Bakke, Silje Ljosland > wrote: > > This is a

RE: Advantage of ISO

and trademark is completely irrelevant. Regards, Silje From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of "Gerard Freriks (privé)" Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 9:11 AM To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: Advantage of IS

Re: Advantage of ISO

In the case of CEN, ISO, HL7, SNOMED all members are the owner. Gerard > On Sep 3, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Seref Arikan > wrote: > > Greetings, > Just to clarify my understanding of your understanding of the term: would you > say HL7 and Snomed CT are

Re: Advantage of ISO

Dear Stef, About homework: I’m not contending what you write. This discussion is about who owns the IP. And then my points about it are not with spoken. Gerard > On Sep 3, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Stef Verlinden > wrote: > > Hi Gerard, > > Please stop

Re: Advantage of ISO

In this particular case IP is held on specifications archetypes are making use of. It is about ownership of IP of BOTH the Reference Model and the AOM Gerard > On Sep 3, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Bert Verhees wrote: > > On 03-09-15 09:07, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: >> I

Re: Advantage of ISO

Gerard, the 'IP rights' are defined by the licences. You can read them here . The rights to use, copy and adapt are clearly defined, and include no curbs on freedom, and no requirement for payment. The only real requirement is that

Re: Advantage of ISO

My question was, what kind of IP. Ownership is not a legal term, you need to specify that. I explained there are two types of IP, which one is applies to OpenEHR? 1) Does the OpenEHR foundation hold copyright? 2) Does the OpenEHR foundation have patents which can be effected hold against the

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 03-09-15 13:02, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: This discussion is about who owns the IP. And then my points about it are not with spoken Which IP do you mean Gerard? The two kinds I know are not "owned" by the OpenEHR foundation. ___

Re: Advantage of ISO

Definitions are context dependant, but that's not the point... you ignored the true argument about availavility and constraints/freedom to use. Sent from my LG Mobile -- Original message--From: Gerard Freriks (privé)Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 04:07To: For openEHR technical

Re: Advantage of ISO

Thanks for your response. Based on this response and another one you gave to Silje, do you think you could give a number of owners of a standard, which you'd consider to be sufficient to make a standard not proprietary? In layman terms: how many owners should a standard have so that you would not

Re: Advantage of ISO

Gerard, I am not sure why you are pursuing this line of argument. The only interesting question here is not about any 'owner', but about the 'credible maintainer'. For openly and freely licenced IP, this is all that practically matters - the capabilities and behaviours of the maintainer

Re: Advantage of ISO

Hi Bert, I am certainly conscious of rumours. Some of these are due to general suspicion of open source licensing (and we can, I think, do more to alleviate this) but I am afraid some of anxiety is also caused by inaccurate and misleading information "openEHR is proprietary", regularly stated

Re: Advantage of ISO

What do I misunderstand? The definition of ‘proprietary’ according to GOOGLE is clear. proprietary prəˈprʌɪət(ə)ri/ adjective adjective: proprietary 1. relating to an owner or ownership. "the company has a proprietary right to the property" behaving as if one owned something or someone. "he

Advantage of ISO

I have written a text (reply to Erik) in Stackoverflow, describing why it will be good for OpenEHR if AOM2.0 will become an ISO-standard in the context of ISO13606 renewal.