subject:"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 specifications' to refer to ISO
> specifications, on the basis that in software licensing terms, ISO material
> and processes are behind a closed paywall. That would be equally unhelpful
> and confusing to potential consumers.
> 
> I would hope you would consider rephrasing your statements to reflect your
> actual concerns. As things stand it seems to me you are inadvertently
> misleading you readers, and I am sure you would wish your views to be
> clearly understood. 

Hi Ian,

I am a bit puzzled by the communications with Gerard you had yesterday.

You seem very pleased with the statements that Gerard did yesterday about the 
ownership of OpenEHR foundation, an ownership would not anymore be called 
"proprietary". For me is owning pretty much the same as proprietary when it is 
about companies. But there seems to to be for you a pleasing difference.

Don't get me wrong, I am happy for you that you are pleased, and I think I 
will not disturb that feeling with unpleasant thoughts.
Because I think that you have a good logical reasoning about how Gerard's 
statement is an answer to your concern you expressed last Friday, which was 
very much OpenEHR-specification-related.

It is only that I don't get it.

I still don't know how Gerard at this moment thinks about the openness of the 
OpenEHR specifications. 
Do you know, Ian? You cared a lot about this last Friday, so how are your 
feelings about this now? Are you also pleased?

Since this is a public mailinglist, in which it is natural that the public is 
able to understand the reasonings, it maybe the case that a significant part of 
the public reading here does not have enough information to understand why you 
are so pleased.

You expressed also concern about what potential customers would think about 
the openness of OpenEHR specifications, and Erik even mentioned the word FUD.

Do you think that now potential customers are satisfied by the proceedings 
evolving yesterday and their worrying is over?

Thank you very much for further enlightenments.

Best regards
Bert

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-08 Thread Ian McNicoll

Hi Bert,

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

a) the specifications and archetypes are licensed using a closed-source
license.

b) that ownership of the IP rests with a commercial organisation.

both of which are misleading ,and I am very grateful to Gerard for
acknowledging this difficulty.

Gerard, Gunnar and others express a perfectly legitimate concern that the
current 'ownership' of openEHR rests with a single organisation i.e UCL,
and would prefer that a broader member-ownership model would be a better
alternative.  I am sure the Board of Governors would be very happy to see
some proposals to be put forward on this basis, but I also think it was
correct for the previous Board to continue with the current arrangement
while the new elected MB gets up to speed and hopefully gets things moving
at a practical level.

There are other more complex issues around the exact flavour of licensing
which some of us feel can act as a deterrent to some potential customers.
That is also understood and being discussed by the MB but it does need
careful thinking through, as there may be some unintended consequences if
we get it wrong. We also have to recognise that against those perceived
deterrents, a large number of commercial and governmental organisations are
quite happy to use and endorse openEHR so these arguments are quite
nuanced.

So am I happy that the worrying of potential customers is over? Of course
not!

We still have work to do to understand if changing the licensing
arrangements and high-level governance will further reduce these concerns.
We still have to pursue alignment with SDO's to see if that too will reduce
anxieties, but we have to ensure that any such alignment does not conflict
with our chosen methodology / philosophy.

I think we also have to recognise that some of these fears are groundless
and based on risk-aversion to open-source in general or bodies that do not
have 'official' SDO status, when such fears are generally diminishing
throughout industry.

I am sure there will be ongoing robust discussions about the best approach
but I am very encouraged that there seems to me to be 100% consensus on the
end goal - open specifications, open governance and agile methodology.

Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 8 September 2015 at 08:30, Bert Verhees 
wrote:

> On Friday, September 04, 2015 18:55:02 Ian McNicoll wrote:
> > However, your use of 'proprietary' in this context is highly misleading,
> > particularly as it applies to phrases like 'proprietary standards' or
> > 'proprietary specifications'.
> >
> > I could equally use the phrase 'proprietary specifications' to refer to
> ISO
> > specifications, on the basis that in software licensing terms, ISO
> material
> > and processes are behind a closed paywall. That would be equally
> unhelpful
> > and confusing to potential consumers.
> >
> > I would hope you would consider rephrasing your statements to reflect
> your
> > actual concerns. As things stand it seems to me you are inadvertently
> > misleading you readers, and I am sure you would wish your views to be
> > clearly understood.
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> I am a bit puzzled by the communications with Gerard you had yesterday.
>
> You seem very pleased with the statements that Gerard did yesterday about
> the
> ownership of OpenEHR foundation, an ownership would not anymore be called
> "proprietary". For me is owning pretty much the same as proprietary when
> it is
> about companies. But there seems to to be for you a pleasing difference.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I am happy for you that you are pleased, and I think I
> will not disturb that feeling with unpleasant thoughts.
> Because I think that you have a good logical reasoning about how Gerard's
> statement is an answer to your concern you expressed last Friday, which was
> very much OpenEHR-specification-related.
>
> It is only that I don't get it.
>
> I still don't know how Gerard at this moment thinks about the openness of
> the
> OpenEHR specifications.
> Do you know, Ian? You cared a lot about this last Friday, so how are your
> feelings about this now? Are you also pleased?
>
> Since this is a public mailinglist, in which it is natural that the public
> is
> able to understand the reasonings, it maybe the case that a significant
> part of
> the public reading here does not have enough information to understand why
> you
> are so pleased.
>
> You expressed also concern about what potential customers would think about
> the openness of

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), that
> 
> a) the specifications and archetypes are licensed using a closed-source
> license.

We know that this is not true, but it is not explicitly acknowledged by 
Gerard. His wording is vague. 

Now is Gerard not that important (or is he? I start to wonder), so we don't 
need to push for that. If he does not want to explicitly and clear state that 
the OpenEHR license is not proprietary, we have to deal with that. And for me 
that is easy, just ignore it.

It just that I do not agree that his contribution from this respect yesterday 
was helpful.

> 
> b) that ownership of the IP rests with a commercial organisation.

That is no problem. Not-for-profit organizations can have proprietary licenses 
and commercial organizations can have non-proprietary licenses.
It is easy to find examples. See RedHAT, Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, they all have 
non-proprietary licenses.  HL7 has been for years a specification-organization 
which was not free, which was proprietary of its members. Only since five years 
or so, it is a free non proprietary standard/specification organization.

So regarding this second point, the statement which  you found helpful has 
also not of much value.
-
The only helpful statement to make was not made. And that would be that the 
OpenEHR specs are licensed by an Apache like license, which is for free use, 
(free as in free beer and as in free speech) for commercial and non-commercial 
use, for ever.
There is no way the OpenEHR foundation will be able to close the 
specifications, if they do, every citizen can bring them to court.

That would have been helpful, but that was not what Gerard said.

So, I do not share your enthusiasm about Gerard's message, yesterday.
There was nothing in it which was helpful from this respect.

Thanks for the discussion on this.

Bert

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-08 Thread Thomas Beale


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 actual 
systems. I believe that is already the case (or at least the intention).




we probably need to perform an audit on all of these artefacts to check 
the licences. One thing we need to change is to allow more types of 
software licence, e.g. AGPL. Large companies and huge health 
institutions like the NHS simply cannot expect to be able to use 
everything for free when it costs quite serious investment on the part 
of typically small companies or research groups in academic settings. 
They need to consider contributing resources. Viral licences need to be 
allowed to enable conditional use; if funding is made available, such 
licences can be converted to other types of licence.


- thomas

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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), that
> 
> a) the specifications and archetypes are licensed using a closed-source
> license.

We know that this is not true, but it is not explicitly acknowledged by 
Gerard. His wording is vague. 

Now is Gerard not that important (or is he? I start to wonder), so we don't 
need to push for that. If he does not want to explicitly and clear state that 
the OpenEHR license is not proprietary, we have to deal with that. And for me 
that is easy, just ignore it.

It just that I do not agree that his contribution from this respect yesterday 
was helpful.

> 
> b) that ownership of the IP rests with a commercial organisation.

That is no problem. Not-for-profit organizations can have proprietary licenses 
and commercial organizations can have non-proprietary licenses.
It is easy to find examples. See RedHAT, Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, they all have 
non-proprietary licenses.  HL7 has been for years a specification-organization 
which was not free, which was proprietary of its members. Only since five years 
or so, it is a free non proprietary standard/specification organization.

So regarding this second point, the statement which  you found helpful has 
also not of much value.
-
The only helpful statement to make was not made. And that would be that the 
OpenEHR specs are licensed by an Apache like license, which is for free use, 
(free as in free beer and as in free speech) for commercial and non-commercial 
use, for ever.
There is no way the OpenEHR foundation will be able to close the 
specifications, if they do, every citizen can bring them to court.

That would have been helpful, but that was not what Gerard said.

So, I do not share your enthusiasm about Gerard's message, yesterday.
There was nothing in it which was helpful from this respect.

Thanks for the discussion on this.

Bert

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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 /
archetypes but also in terms of governance, gives the impression (perhaps
unintended), that

a) the specifications and archetypes are licensed using a closed-source
license.

We know that this is not true, but it is not explicitly acknowledged by
Gerard. His wording is vague.

Now is Gerard not that important (or is he? I start to wonder), so we don't
need to push for that. If he does not want to explicitly and clear state that
the OpenEHR license is not proprietary, we have to deal with that. And for me
that is easy, just ignore it.

It just that I do not agree that his contribution from this respect yesterday
was helpful.


b) that ownership of the IP rests with a commercial organisation.

That is no problem. Not-for-profit organizations can have proprietary licenses
and commercial organizations can have non-proprietary licenses.
It is easy to find examples. See RedHAT, Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, they all have
non-proprietary licenses.  HL7 has been for years a specification-organization
which was not free, which was proprietary of its members. Only since five years
or so, it is a free non proprietary standard/specification organization.

So regarding this second point, the statement which  you found helpful has
also not of much value.
-
The only helpful statement to make was not made. And that would be that the
OpenEHR specs are licensed by an Apache like license, which is for free use,
(free as in free beer and as in free speech) for commercial and non-commercial
use, for ever.
There is no way the OpenEHR foundation will be able to close the
specifications, if they do, every citizen can bring them to court.

That would have been helpful, but that was not what Gerard said.

So, I do not share your enthusiasm about Gerard's message, yesterday.
There was nothing in it which was helpful from this respect.

Thanks for the discussion on this.

Bert

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-07 Thread Bert Verhees

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 current situation.


But I understand you, and some others feel OpenEHR being attacked, that 
is why you want another solution.
You suggested a few, I suggested one. You can also consult a specialized 
lawyer.

Maybe you are solving a non existing problem.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Bert


On 07-09-15 04:02, Thomas Beale wrote:


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 publishing, which would create real problems for obvious reasons.


Probably we do want to allow the forking of the specifications into 
some new specifications, i.e. with new names and identifiers, that 
clearly cannot confused with the originals, and the ND provision 
I believe would 
prevent this.


I am not sure what the best replacement is though - it's quite 
important that a specification with the title 'openEHR EHR Information 
Model' and version xyz really is only one document, and that no 
modified versions of that can masquerade as that thing.


W3C achieve this with a custom copyright notice (see above). We 
probably want a different approach. I don't personally have time to 
research this but ideally we want a licence that does the following 
for the specifications:


  * requires attribution with all replublishing, sharing
  * prevents republishing in altered form with same document title,
id, and also publisher i.e. 'openEHR'
  * but allows normal forking into artefacts that are clearly different

- thomas


On 07/09/2015 06:48, Bert Verhees wrote:
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 version gets a new number.

I don't know what it takes to make an RFC of something and if it 
would be appropriate for OpenEHR.


http://www.rfc-editor.org/




___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-07 Thread Ian McNicoll

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
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, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 7 September 2015 at 14:38, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" 
wrote:

> 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 ‘proprietary’ has an other, different, meaning, when
> applied to software or specifications.
> My original e-mail conveyed an unintended meaning, is my conclusion.
>  Therefore I will no longer use the word ‘proprietary’ but the phrase ‘
> openEHR as a company owned by UCL’.
>
> With regards,
>
>  Gerard
>
> Gerard Freriks
> +31 620347088
> gf...@luna.nl
>
> On 3 sep. 2015, at 02:07, Ian McNicoll  wrote:
>
> 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 by a small number of individuals. I have had to ask for these to be
> corrected in a number of documents e.g. The SemanticHealthNet report where
> it was agreed by the principal authors, including Dipak, to be incorrect.
>
> Since a significant number of companies and national organisations now
> make use of openEHR specifications or artefacts, these statements are being
> regarded as commercially hostile and the Foundation Boards both agree that
> legal action should now be taken where the authors are not prepared to
> promptly correct this inaccuracy.
>
> Leaving that aside. I am not convinced that ISO is a good home for
> openEHR. The specifications, development and revision process in ISO remain
> completely closed and quite at odds withopenEHR principles but I would be
> interested in other's views.
>
> I do think that some sort of association with a formal standards body
> would help alleviate some of the anxieties you mention (though these are
> imaginary) but I am not sure that ISO would be my first choice as it is
> currently constructed. I will raise the issue of whether to submit AOM2
> with the Management Board.
>
> I am interested in other people's opinions.
>
> 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, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
> On 1 September 2015 at 16:48, Bert Verhees  wrote:
>
>> On 01-09-15 17:16, Bert Verhees wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32010122/are-the-hl7-fhir-hl7-cda-cimi-openehr-and-iso13606-approaches-aiming-to-solve/
>>>
>>
>> I must add, it is not that I suspect anyone of having secret IP on
>> OpenEHR.
>> I have no reason to suspect this.
>>
>> But I know people who have such suspicions, and having the AOM-part as an
>> ISO standard, surely will fight these rumors.
>>
>> I think it will help OpenEHR-implementations to have more customers.
>>
>> Bert
>>
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-07 Thread Bert Verhees


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 'for-profit 'company?


As I recall the main subject of the discussion was the openness of the 
specifications.


Gerard, as I understand you, you are saying that you will use another 
phrase when addressing the OpenEHR foundation in relation to UCL.

You will no longer use the word proprietary in this context.

Personally, I don't care much if you call the OpenEHR foundation 
"proprietary of UCL", or "a company owned by UCL".


But how do you value the specifications of OpenEHR, does he still think 
the word "proprietary" is appropriate for the specifications?


Thanks for any clarification

Bert
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-07 Thread Ian McNicoll

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, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 7 September 2015 at 15:43, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" 
wrote:

> 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 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
> 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, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
> On 7 September 2015 at 14:38, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 ‘proprietary’ has an other, different, meaning, when
>> applied to software or specifications.
>> My original e-mail conveyed an unintended meaning, is my conclusion.
>>  Therefore I will no longer use the word ‘proprietary’ but the phrase ‘
>> openEHR as a company owned by UCL’.
>>
>> With regards,
>>
>>  Gerard
>>
>> Gerard Freriks
>> +31 620347088
>> gf...@luna.nl
>>
>> On 3 sep. 2015, at 02:07, Ian McNicoll  wrote:
>>
>> 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 by a small number of individuals. I have had to ask for these to be
>> corrected in a number of documents e.g. The SemanticHealthNet report where
>> it was agreed by the principal authors, including Dipak, to be incorrect.
>>
>> Since a significant number of companies and national organisations now
>> make use of openEHR specifications or artefacts, these statements are being
>> regarded as commercially hostile and the Foundation Boards both agree that
>> legal action should now be taken where the authors are not prepared to
>> promptly correct this inaccuracy.
>>
>> Leaving that aside. I am not convinced that ISO is a good home for
>> openEHR. The specifications, development and revision process in ISO remain
>> completely closed and quite at odds withopenEHR principles but I would be
>> interested in other's views.
>>
>> I do think that some sort of association with a formal standards body
>> would help alleviate some of the anxieties you mention (though these are
>> imaginary) but I am not sure that ISO would be my first choice as it is
>> currently constructed. I will raise the issue of whether to submit AOM2
>> with the Management Board.
>>
>> I am interested in other people's opinions.
>>
>> 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, HANDIHealth CIC
>> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>>
>> On 1 September 2015 at 16:48, Bert Verhees  wrote:
>>
>>> On 01-09-15 17:16, Bert Verhees wrote:
>>>
 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.


 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32010122/are-the-hl7-fhir-hl7-cda-cimi-openehr-and-iso13606-approaches-aiming-to-solve/

>>>
>>> I must add, it is not that I suspect anyone of having secret IP on
>>> OpenEHR.
>>> I have no reason to suspect this.
>>>
>>> But I know people who have such suspicions, and having the AOM-part as
>>> an ISO standard, surely will fight these rumors.
>>>
>>> I think it will help OpenEHR-implementations to have more customers.
>>>
>>> Bert
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>>

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-07 Thread Julian Lim

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 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
> 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, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
> On 7 September 2015 at 14:38, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 ‘proprietary’ has an other, different, meaning, when
>> applied to software or specifications.
>> My original e-mail conveyed an unintended meaning, is my conclusion.
>>  Therefore I will no longer use the word ‘proprietary’ but the phrase ‘
>> openEHR as a company owned by UCL’.
>>
>> With regards,
>>
>>  Gerard
>>
>> Gerard Freriks
>> +31 620347088
>> gf...@luna.nl
>>
>> On 3 sep. 2015, at 02:07, Ian McNicoll  wrote:
>>
>> 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 by a small number of individuals. I have had to ask for these to be
>> corrected in a number of documents e.g. The SemanticHealthNet report where
>> it was agreed by the principal authors, including Dipak, to be incorrect.
>>
>> Since a significant number of companies and national organisations now
>> make use of openEHR specifications or artefacts, these statements are being
>> regarded as commercially hostile and the Foundation Boards both agree that
>> legal action should now be taken where the authors are not prepared to
>> promptly correct this inaccuracy.
>>
>> Leaving that aside. I am not convinced that ISO is a good home for
>> openEHR. The specifications, development and revision process in ISO remain
>> completely closed and quite at odds withopenEHR principles but I would be
>> interested in other's views.
>>
>> I do think that some sort of association with a formal standards body
>> would help alleviate some of the anxieties you mention (though these are
>> imaginary) but I am not sure that ISO would be my first choice as it is
>> currently constructed. I will raise the issue of whether to submit AOM2
>> with the Management Board.
>>
>> I am interested in other people's opinions.
>>
>> 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, HANDIHealth CIC
>> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>>
>> On 1 September 2015 at 16:48, Bert Verhees  wrote:
>>
>>> On 01-09-15 17:16, Bert Verhees wrote:
>>>
 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.


 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32010122/are-the-hl7-fhir-hl7-cda-cimi-openehr-and-iso13606-approaches-aiming-to-solve/

>>>
>>> I must add, it is not that I suspect anyone of having secret IP on
>>> OpenEHR.
>>> I have no reason to suspect this.
>>>
>>> But I know people who have such suspicions, and having the AOM-part as
>>> an ISO standard, surely will fight these rumors.
>>>
>>> I think it will help OpenEHR-implementations to have more customers.
>>>
>>> Bert
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>
>
>
>

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-07 Thread Gerard Freriks (privé)

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 ‘proprietary’ has an other, different, meaning, when 
applied to software or specifications.
My original e-mail conveyed an unintended meaning, is my conclusion.
 Therefore I will no longer use the word ‘proprietary’ but the phrase ‘ openEHR 
as a company owned by UCL’.

With regards,
 
 Gerard

Gerard Freriks
+31 620347088
gf...@luna.nl 
> On 3 sep. 2015, at 02:07, Ian McNicoll  wrote:
> 
> 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 by a small 
> number of individuals. I have had to ask for these to be corrected in a 
> number of documents e.g. The SemanticHealthNet report where it was agreed by 
> the principal authors, including Dipak, to be incorrect.
> 
> Since a significant number of companies and national organisations now make 
> use of openEHR specifications or artefacts, these statements are being 
> regarded as commercially hostile and the Foundation Boards both agree that 
> legal action should now be taken where the authors are not prepared to 
> promptly correct this inaccuracy.
> 
> Leaving that aside. I am not convinced that ISO is a good home for openEHR. 
> The specifications, development and revision process in ISO remain completely 
> closed and quite at odds withopenEHR principles but I would be interested in 
> other's views. 
> 
> I do think that some sort of association with a formal standards body would 
> help alleviate some of the anxieties you mention (though these are imaginary) 
> but I am not sure that ISO would be my first choice as it is currently 
> constructed. I will raise the issue of whether to submit AOM2 with the 
> Management Board.
> 
> I am interested in other people's opinions.
> 
> 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, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
> 
> On 1 September 2015 at 16:48, Bert Verhees  > wrote:
> On 01-09-15 17:16, Bert Verhees wrote:
> 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.
> 
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32010122/are-the-hl7-fhir-hl7-cda-cimi-openehr-and-iso13606-approaches-aiming-to-solve/
>  
> 
>  
> 
> I must add, it is not that I suspect anyone of having secret IP on OpenEHR.
> I have no reason to suspect this.
> 
> But I know people who have such suspicions, and having the AOM-part as an ISO 
> standard, surely will fight these rumors.
> 
> I think it will help OpenEHR-implementations to have more customers.
> 
> Bert
> 
> 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org 
> 
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org 
> 
> 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-07 Thread Gerard Freriks (privé)

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 established by UCL’ which I hope captures your 
> reservations about single ownership without giving the impression that this 
> is a 'for-profit 'company?
> 
> Ian

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-07 Thread Bert Verhees


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 mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-07 Thread Gerard Freriks (privé)

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 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
> 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, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
> 
> On 7 September 2015 at 14:38, "Gerard Freriks (privé)"  > wrote:
> 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 ‘proprietary’ has an other, different, meaning, when 
> applied to software or specifications.
> My original e-mail conveyed an unintended meaning, is my conclusion.
>  Therefore I will no longer use the word ‘proprietary’ but the phrase ‘ 
> openEHR as a company owned by UCL’.
> 
> With regards,
>  
>  Gerard
> 
> Gerard Freriks
> +31 620347088 
> gf...@luna.nl 
>> On 3 sep. 2015, at 02:07, Ian McNicoll > > wrote:
>> 
>> 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 by a small number of individuals. I have had to ask for these to be 
>> corrected in a number of documents e.g. The SemanticHealthNet report where 
>> it was agreed by the principal authors, including Dipak, to be incorrect.
>> 
>> Since a significant number of companies and national organisations now make 
>> use of openEHR specifications or artefacts, these statements are being 
>> regarded as commercially hostile and the Foundation Boards both agree that 
>> legal action should now be taken where the authors are not prepared to 
>> promptly correct this inaccuracy.
>> 
>> Leaving that aside. I am not convinced that ISO is a good home for openEHR. 
>> The specifications, development and revision process in ISO remain 
>> completely closed and quite at odds withopenEHR principles but I would be 
>> interested in other's views. 
>> 
>> I do think that some sort of association with a formal standards body would 
>> help alleviate some of the anxieties you mention (though these are 
>> imaginary) but I am not sure that ISO would be my first choice as it is 
>> currently constructed. I will raise the issue of whether to submit AOM2 with 
>> the Management Board.
>> 
>> I am interested in other people's opinions.
>> 
>> 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, HANDIHealth CIC
>> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>> 
>> On 1 September 2015 at 16:48, Bert Verhees > > wrote:
>> On 01-09-15 17:16, Bert Verhees wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32010122/are-the-hl7-fhir-hl7-cda-cimi-openehr-and-iso13606-approaches-aiming-to-solve/
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I must add, it is not that I suspect anyone of having secret IP on OpenEHR.
>> I have no reason to suspect this.
>> 
>> But I know people who have such suspicions, and having the AOM-part as an 
>> ISO standard, surely will fight these rumors.
>> 
>> I think it will help OpenEHR-implementations to have more customers.
>> 
>> Bert
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-06 Thread Thomas Beale



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 
publishing, which would create real problems for obvious reasons.


Probably we do want to allow the forking of the specifications into some 
new specifications, i.e. with new names and identifiers, that clearly 
cannot confused with the originals, and the ND provision 
I believe would prevent 
this.


I am not sure what the best replacement is though - it's quite important 
that a specification with the title 'openEHR EHR Information Model' and 
version xyz really is only one document, and that no modified versions 
of that can masquerade as that thing.


W3C achieve this with a custom copyright notice (see above). We probably 
want a different approach. I don't personally have time to research this 
but ideally we want a licence that does the following for the 
specifications:


 * requires attribution with all replublishing, sharing
 * prevents republishing in altered form with same document title, id,
   and also publisher i.e. 'openEHR'
 * but allows normal forking into artefacts that are clearly different

- thomas


On 07/09/2015 06:48, Bert Verhees wrote:
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 version gets a new number.

I don't know what it takes to make an RFC of something and if it would 
be appropriate for OpenEHR.


http://www.rfc-editor.org/


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-06 Thread Bert Verhees

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 version gets a new number.

I don't know what it takes to make an RFC of something and if it would
be appropriate for OpenEHR.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/

Bert

On 06-09-15 22:18, Ian McNicoll wrote:

Hi Erik,

>For some reason, that I have not yet fully understood, previous and current leadership of
openEHR has not yet dared >taking the step to skip all ND- and SA-
clauses. (Like an anxious over-protective parent afraid to give their
now fairly >grown teenager enough trust and freedom.)

The MB has been looking at this issue and I think generally minded to
take the steps to remove the ND- and SA- clauses but we need to be
absolutely clear about the implications.

My understanding is that removing ND (or Public Domain) could only
really be safe if we have solid Trademark protection to prevent a fork
representing itself as 'official openEHR'. This was the approach taken
by FHIR, I believe that for some technical reason, previous attempts
to secure US trademarking was unsuccessful, and course, will cost a
few thousand euros to achieve.

Silje, Heather and myself looked at removing -SA in connection with
better understanding the copyright requirements for forks / moves of
CKM archetypes. There were some concerns that removing -SA might
actually make free movement of archetypes between national repos more
difficult, particularly if national govts start to fork and apply more
restrictive licences. This is not necessarily a blocker but we do need
to think through the implications.

I will raise this at the MB meeting this week wth the suggestion that
we set up a small working group with reps from Software, Clinical and
Specs group Program leads to look at the options and report back.

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, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 5 September 2015 at 09:44, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" > wrote:

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 to full
stadard in the context of standards creation/maintenance.

It is my opinion that the SDO’s need an other business model such
that standards are made available for free.

Gerard Freriks
+31 620347088
gf...@luna.nl

On 4 sep. 2015, at 21:58, Diego Boscá > wrote:

There are free ISO specifications, like schematron and a handful
more.

http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/

You can even ask for an ISO norm to be free. In fact asked for
ISO 13606 to be free, but received no answer.

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 about that.
I am sure they prohibit publishing their document.

As is with AOM1.4, it is published as ISO's version by ISO (as
part of ISO13606) and it is published as OpenEHR's version by
OpenEHR , so that can be done.
That both contain the same information.

It is a bit Kafkaesk, but that is normal when bureaucrats get
involved.

Bert

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org

http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org

http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org

http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-05 Thread Gerard Freriks (privé)

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 to full stadard in the 
context of standards creation/maintenance.

It is my opinion that the SDO’s need an other business model such that 
standards are made available for free.


Gerard Freriks
+31 620347088
gf...@luna.nl 
> On 4 sep. 2015, at 21:58, Diego Boscá  wrote:
> 
> There are free ISO specifications, like schematron and a handful more.
> 
> http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ 
> 
> You can even ask for an ISO norm to be free. In fact asked for ISO 13606 to 
> be free, but received no answer.
> 
> 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 about that.
> I am sure they prohibit publishing their document.
> 
> As is with AOM1.4, it is published as ISO's version by ISO (as part of 
> ISO13606) and it is published  as OpenEHR's version by OpenEHR , so that can 
> be done.
> That both contain the same information.
> 
> It is a bit Kafkaesk, but that is normal when bureaucrats get involved.
> 
> 
> Bert
> 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org 
> 
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org 
> 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

RE: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-04 Thread pablo pazos

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: gf...@luna.nl
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 08:19:35 +0200
CC: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
To: pazospa...@hotmail.com

I shared with you my definitions and my argument.This provided my context.
In principle: definitions are universal in nature and generally applicable in 
many contexts.

Gerard
On Sep 3, 2015, at 3:33 PM, pazospa...@hotmail.com wrote:





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 discussions;Subject:Re: Advantage of ISOI think 
that definitions are generally valid.


On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:38 AM, pablo pazos <pazospa...@hotmail.com> 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 
constraints / freedoms in that area, not in who is the owner.-- Kind 
regards,Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrezhttp://cabolabs.com

  ___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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 productive :)
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
> http://cabolabs.com 
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-04 Thread Ian McNicoll

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 statement that 'openEHR is a ... proprietary specification'.
I have also had cause to have similar statements corrected on other
occasions where it has been made in official EU and national publications.
On each occasion the owners of the document have agreed that this statement
is misleading and unjustified.

@Gerard - thank you for your explanations. What you mean by 'proprietary' ,
I now understand, is that you have concerns that the legal  'ownership' of
the not-for-profit organisation should be invested in a broader membership
and not in a single institution. That is a perfectly legitimate position
and, see below, one that I for one, hope  will be seriously considered in
the near future.

The problem I, and others, have with your statements is that whatever your
intention, the phrase 'proprietary specification' or 'proprietary software'
is commonly taken to mean that the IP is only made available under a
closed/proprietary licence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software

In the context of use, the claim that 'openEHR ... is a proprietary
specification' is  often interpreted that openEHR specifications attract a
proprietary licence. As others have said, the nature of the company or
organisation has no relevance to the licensing of the intellectual
property.

It is also, of course quite legitimate for you to make the distinction
between a formal SDO and an SSO like openEHR. Bert has raised some
interesting points about some of the possible advantages of ISO, or other
SDO membership/affiliation, and the Management Board is actively exploring
these possibilities.

However, your use of 'proprietary' in this context is highly misleading,
particularly as it applies to phrases like 'proprietary standards' or
'proprietary specifications'.

I could equally use the phrase 'proprietary specifications' to refer to ISO
specifications, on the basis that in software licensing terms, ISO material
and processes are behind a closed paywall. That would be equally unhelpful
and confusing to potential consumers.

I would hope you would consider rephrasing your statements to reflect your
actual concerns. As things stand it seems to me you are inadvertently
misleading you readers, and I am sure you would wish your views to be
clearly understood.

I am happy to debate the relevant merits of the ISO vs. open-source
approaches recognising that the end-goals of both are similar and
well-intentioned. There are benefits and demerits on both sides but let's
ensure that the debate addresses those differences and does not mislead by
the choice of words and context of use.

I am certainly very happy for AOM2/ADL2 to be submitted to CEN/ISO in due
course, if that seems appropriate.

I too will say no more on the subject, other than to thank Gunnar for his
very thoughtful and balanced contribution. My impression is that many ?
most people in our community, including the Boards have a great deal of
sympathy for Gunnar's suggested direction of travel. The current UCL
relationship is, I believe, helpful in the short term, but is not set in
stone. If the community feels that moving to a broader 'ownership' model
 is more in keeping with the future of the Foundation then I think this
merits very careful consideration.

The good news is that openEHR is buzzing ...  We may not be perfect but we
are getting something right.

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, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 4 September 2015 at 07:29, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" 
wrote:

> 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 openEHR is an long standing problem
> that has not been resolved sufficiently, until now.
> This is my personal opinion.
>
> Gerard
>
> PS: Bert: I reacted to an e-mail by Ian, who reacted to one of your
> e-mails.
>
> On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:54 PM, Bert Verhees  wrote:
>
> 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
> technologies?
>
> I ask this because your complaint

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 about that.
I am sure they prohibit publishing their document.

As is with AOM1.4, it is published as ISO's version by ISO (as part of 
ISO13606) and it is published  as OpenEHR's version by OpenEHR , so that 
can be done.

That both contain the same information.

It is a bit Kafkaesk, but that is normal when bureaucrats get involved.


Bert

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-04 Thread Erik Sundvall

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 (apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) has an anti-patent clause (#3).
The ADL (Archetype definition language) grammar and the UML sourcecode are
such resources. Yes, the written documentation is currently CC-BY-ND but
the archetype formalism (AOM/ADL) and the Reference Model (RM) have been
scientifically published years ago and are thus impossible to claim any
patents on. It might still be a good idea (for PR reasons not patent
reasons) to let ISO to make a version of AOM/ADL2.0 into a formal standard."

Bert then replied:

"I need to clarify a bit more, the Apache-Licence speaks only for the
publisher (not filing patent-claims against the user of the published
work). But in this special case, where the suspicion has risen that the
publisher would have secret patents, this should be sufficient. So I agree
with you, also on your other arguments."

That was an angle new to me that I had not noticed before, so lets dive in:

Already published things can never be patented (you can only patent "new"
inventions). So would then the (somewhat paranoid) fear still left be the
suspicion that the openEHR foundation (or Ocean Informatics or UCL) already
had (a now still valid) patent regarding something in openEHR before
publishing? I guess that can be easily checked for example at:
https://www.epo.org/searching/free/espacenet.html and
http://patft.uspto.gov/ for anybody that does want to take their word for
it... (Patent search left as exercise to the interested reader...)

Are there any other patent fears/arguments that we can get out into the
light of this open forum?

// Erik

P.s. By the way, feel free to answer and upvote the original stackexchange
question itself now at 0 from previous -2 :-) Also remember to post new
useful openEHR-related questions.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Erik Sundvall  wrote:

> 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 patience. Doing it in an open forum like this is perfect. Let all
> fears and haunting thoughts come out into the light so that they can be
> studied and discussed in detail.
>
> And Gerard, please select less questionable and easily misunderstood
> wording than "proprietary" to describe the issue, so that we can understand
> the real core issue. There are plenty of other wordings to choose from that
> will reduce risks of misunderstanding.Otherwise possibly good intentions in
> an "ownership-discussion" will likely be interpreted as you deliberately
> wanting to spread FUD
>  regarding
> openEHR, and that is probably not the way you want to be percieved.
>
> Generally speaking; it is natural to feel suspicious if you don't
> understand how decisions affecting you are being made and you don't know
> how you can influence (or if needed try to replace) the decisionmakers.
> Also, it is pretty natural that it is hard to fully understand other
> people's suspicions if you are one of the decision makers or if you for
> good reasons (experience, knowing their intentions etc) already fully trust
> them. (I have seen this from both angles over time.)
>
> That is why perpetual open licenses are such a help, no one can ever take
> away the thing you or your project is dependent on.
>
> With licences that are both "forkable" (no ND-clause) and non-contageous
> (no SA-clause) like Apache 2 and CC-BY (and CC0) you have even more
> protection - you don't even have to trust the decision makers to go the
> right way in the future with the project you invested time and resources
> in. If they misbehave grossly you can together with enough of the
> disgruntled community start a new future for a copy of the project under a
> new name.
>
> For fully forkable projects the "who is the IP owner"-arguments ar always
> completely irrelevant, don't you agree? Wouldn't the argument regarding
> "proprietary" be obviously rediculous in such a context?
>
> For some reason, that I have not yet fully understood, previous and
> current leadership of openEHR has not yet dared taking the step to skip all
> ND- and SA- clauses. (Like an anxious over-protective parent afraid to give
> their now fairly grown teenager enough trust and freedom.) In my mind I
> sometimes guess and sense that they have a fear that someone will do some
> kind of hostile forking, creating yet another incompatible standard. Who
> knows, maybe they fear that Gerard and the 13606-association, CIMI or some
>

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-04 Thread Erik Sundvall

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 patience. Doing it in an open forum like this is perfect. Let all
fears and haunting thoughts come out into the light so that they can be
studied and discussed in detail.

And Gerard, please select less questionable and easily misunderstood
wording than "proprietary" to describe the issue, so that we can understand
the real core issue. There are plenty of other wordings to choose from that
will reduce risks of misunderstanding.Otherwise possibly good intentions in
an "ownership-discussion" will likely be interpreted as you deliberately
wanting to spread FUD
 regarding
openEHR, and that is probably not the way you want to be percieved.

Generally speaking; it is natural to feel suspicious if you don't
understand how decisions affecting you are being made and you don't know
how you can influence (or if needed try to replace) the decisionmakers.
Also, it is pretty natural that it is hard to fully understand other
people's suspicions if you are one of the decision makers or if you for
good reasons (experience, knowing their intentions etc) already fully trust
them. (I have seen this from both angles over time.)

That is why perpetual open licenses are such a help, no one can ever take
away the thing you or your project is dependent on.

With licences that are both "forkable" (no ND-clause) and non-contageous
(no SA-clause) like Apache 2 and CC-BY (and CC0) you have even more
protection - you don't even have to trust the decision makers to go the
right way in the future with the project you invested time and resources
in. If they misbehave grossly you can together with enough of the
disgruntled community start a new future for a copy of the project under a
new name.

For fully forkable projects the "who is the IP owner"-arguments ar always
completely irrelevant, don't you agree? Wouldn't the argument regarding
"proprietary" be obviously rediculous in such a context?

For some reason, that I have not yet fully understood, previous and current
leadership of openEHR has not yet dared taking the step to skip all ND- and
SA- clauses. (Like an anxious over-protective parent afraid to give their
now fairly grown teenager enough trust and freedom.) In my mind I sometimes
guess and sense that they have a fear that someone will do some kind of
hostile forking, creating yet another incompatible standard. Who knows,
maybe they fear that Gerard and the 13606-association, CIMI or some other
organization wants to fork all the hard work done by openEHR and manage to
lure the mindshare of the openEHR-community over to another organization? -
There you see an example of the suspicion-mechanism described above: I do
not understand the reasoning for not dropping ND or SA from the license of
different artifacts, thus I start suspecting and guessing things...
Probably not the most constructive way of reasoning, but that is a way our
minds often work; filling out the blanks with guessing.

In the case of openEHR suspicions of biased leadership possibly favoring a
single company or other party (intentionally or just by lack of broader
perspectives/understanding) or perhaps having a hidden patent/IP-claim
coming up were easier to understand some years ago before openEHR, as now,
had several different (often competing) companies and organizations inside
specification comittee and management.

Best regards,
Erik Sundvall
Ph.D. Medical Informatics. Information Architect. Tel: +46-72-524 54 55 (or
010-1036252 in Sweden)
Region Östergötland: erik.sundv...@regionostergotland.se (previously lio.se)
http://www.regionostergotland.se/cmit/
Linköping University: erik.sundv...@liu.se, http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Ian McNicoll  wrote:

> 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 statement that 'openEHR is a ... proprietary
> specification'. I have also had cause to have similar statements corrected
> on other occasions where it has been made in official EU and national
> publications. On each occasion the owners of the document have agreed that
> this statement is misleading and unjustified.
>
> @Gerard - thank you for your explanations. What you mean by 'proprietary'
> , I now understand, is that you have concerns that the legal  'ownership'
> of the not-for-profit organisation should be invested in a broader
> membership and not in a single institution. That is a perfectly legitimate
>

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 OpenOffice version 1.x. So
don't expect a fancy site.

(This was the foreword)

So, I know something about patents. The problem with patents is that they
are not easy to find, despite classification systems. It is all about
wording and keywords. So the fact that you cannot find a patent disturbing
your business does not mean there is no patent.

(This was about finding patents)

It is very important that the OpenEhr foundation, as it actual does,
promises in its license that it will not file patent suits against users of
its specifications. So we  do not need to look for secret patents, the
promise is sufficient. This promise is irrevocable.

I too find it unbelievable that people suspect the OpenEhr foundation for
having this kind of dirty tricks in their plans. But those people really
exist.

Seriously, I even heard people believing the OpenEhr foundation is owning
medical data that are stored using OpenEHR specs. Adult serious people,
with influence in decisions are saying this. We all know, that medical data
in every country are controlled by local law, and the OpenEhr foundation
can't ever be more powerful then the law. People just don't think well,
they don't add two by two.

In the Netherlands we have books for children, they are called "Jip en
Janneke". The OpenEhr foundation need to explain in "Jip en Janneke"
language what really is true and not true.

Maybe a prominent placed link to a FAQ in "Jip en Janneke" language would
help.

Maybe I am just accidently meeting the wrong people. That is possible.
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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.
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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 don't like the license of a product, I don't use it. I am not going 
to send 20 emails to the usergroup to complain.




___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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, rights count.


Users do not need to "own" Linux, the need the right to use it.
That is how Open Source work.
Users do not need to "own".

How much rights have users of OpenEHR?
They have the right to download and distribute the specifications for free.
They have the right to implement it for free

The license says, those rights are perpetual.



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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, 200 Euro per part.
They may not distribute it freely.
There is copyright on it.

So, this was my last message about this.

I think some one else should defend the position of OpenEHR from now.



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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. 
> 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 call it proprietary? 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:11 AM, "Gerard Freriks (privé)"  > wrote:
> 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 proprietary ?
> 
> 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org 
> 
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org 
> 
> 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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 openEHR is an long standing problem that has 
not been resolved sufficiently, until now.
This is my personal opinion.

Gerard 

PS: Bert: I reacted to an e-mail by Ian, who reacted to one of your e-mails.

> On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:54 PM, Bert Verhees  wrote:
> 
> 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 technologies?
> 
> I ask this because your complaint of OpenEHR in your point not being free 
> must be very old because nothing much has changed in this, except, the (for 
> many) unrelated situations are coming together. Why else would your effort at 
> this very moment be so strong, you spent today, quite a few emails in public 
> space to make this point.
> 
> It must be, that for you, your complaint, must also concern AOM2.0, because 
> it is an OpenEHR related technology released under the same terms as the 
> other specifications.
> 
> In that case, you could consider being glad that AOM2.0 being a part of the 
> renewed 13606. Because that would bring it under ISO, which would make the 
> ISO members be the owner. That would exactly be what you want.
> 
> Or don't you?
> 
> That could only be explained from some other reason, which I don't know.
> 
> I hope you can enlighten us about the reason of your sudden effort of warning 
> us. Why now, why so strong?
> 
> Best regards
> Bert
> 

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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 messages.


In a last attempt to reach you


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-04 Thread Sebastian Garde


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 Verhees wrote:

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, 200 Euro per part.
They may not distribute it freely.
There is copyright on it.

So, this was my last message about this.

I think some one else should defend the position of OpenEHR from now.



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org 




---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

I shared with you my definitions and my argument.
This provided my context.

In principle: definitions are universal in nature and generally applicable in 
many contexts.


Gerard

> On Sep 3, 2015, at 3:33 PM, pazospa...@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
> 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 04:07
> To: For openEHR technical discussions;
> Subject: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 constraints / freedoms in that area, not in who is the owner.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Kind regards,
>> Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
>> http://cabolabs.com 

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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 definition of ‘open standard’, openEHR is an open Standard
but owned by as single company.

I know for certain that this fact prohibited serious business in some European 
countries, some years ago.
Because of the licensing and dependency on proprietary specifications, the 
artifacts produced were not controllable by the user/customer.
This was their reason, after legal consultation, not to use software based on 
openEHR specifications.

Gerard

> On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:16 PM, Koray Atalag  wrote:
> 
> I think Silje’s explanation is crystal clear on this matter – so what exactly 
> your problem is Gerard with openEHR? Can you give a concrete example where 
> other SDOs you mention are better placed wrt to freedom?
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> -koray

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

RE: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-03 Thread Koray Atalag

I think Silje’s explanation is crystal clear on this matter – so what exactly 
your problem is Gerard with openEHR? Can you give a concrete example where 
other SDOs you mention are better placed wrt to freedom?

Cheers,

-koray

From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@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, 
distribution and improvement of the artifacts. This is what makes openEHR open 
and not proprietary. The organisation of the body holding the copyright 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 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 
<silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no<mailto:silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no>>
 wrote:

This is a misuse of the dictionary definition. Using your interpretation, all 
free/open projects are proprietary unless both IP and trademarks are made 
Public Domain. Linus Torvalds is the IP copyright holder and trademark owner of 
Linux, but because it’s released under a free license, it’s not proprietary 
software. The same goes for the openEHR Foundation and openEHR 
specs/artifacts/software.

Kind regards,
Silje Ljosland Bakke

Information Architect, RN
Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
National ICT Norway


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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
technologies?

I ask this because your complaint of OpenEHR in your point not being free
must be very old because nothing much has changed in this, except, the (for
many) unrelated situations are coming together. Why else would your effort
at this very moment be so strong, you spent today, quite a few emails in
public space to make this point.

It must be, that for you, your complaint, must also concern AOM2.0, because
it is an OpenEHR related technology released under the same terms as the
other specifications.

In that case, you could consider being glad that AOM2.0 being a part of the
renewed 13606. Because that would bring it under ISO, which would make the
ISO members be the owner. That would exactly be what you want.

Or don't you?

That could only be explained from some other reason, which I don't know.

I hope you can enlighten us about the reason of your sudden effort of
warning us. Why now, why so strong?

Best regards
Bert
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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, zorggemak, and their customers, etc, in your
opinion, worry they might get a claim when the "owner" wakes up.

Do you consider this as a real danger for those companies?

And what kind of claim do you expect?

And what do you suggest should be done to take away those worries?

Maybe license it open source with a notification that no patent claims will
be executed, and that until the end of days?

Would this give certainty in your eyes.

Op 3 sep. 2015 21:47 schreef Gerard Freriks (privé) :

> 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 definition of ‘open standard’, openEHR is an open Standard
> but owned by as single company.
>
> I know for certain that this fact prohibited serious business in some
> European countries, some years ago.
> Because of the licensing and dependency on proprietary specifications, the
> artifacts produced were not controllable by the user/customer.
> This was their reason, after legal consultation, not to use software based
> on openEHR specifications.
>
> Gerard
>
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:16 PM, Koray Atalag  wrote:
>
> I think Silje’s explanation is crystal clear on this matter – so what
> exactly your problem is Gerard with openEHR? Can you give a concrete
> example where other SDOs you mention are better placed wrt to freedom?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -koray
>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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, which others, using the Apache license do not
have?

I think this must be the key point of your effort of making us aware. So it
will be very nice for all of us, if you explain this.

Thanks in advance
Bert
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-03 Thread Seref Arikan

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  is clear.
> proprietary
> prəˈprʌɪət(ə)ri/
> *adjective*
> adjective: *proprietary*
>
>1. *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 looked about him with a proprietary air"
>   2. *2*.
>(of a product) marketed under and protected by a registered trade name.
>"proprietary brands of insecticide"
>
> Origin
> late Middle English (as a noun denoting a member of a religious order who
> held property): from late Latin *proprietarius* ‘proprietor’, from
> *proprietas* (see property
> 
> ).
>
> On the openEHR website we all can read about the Legal Status.
> And that is clear, also.
> OpenEHR specs are owned by the company that is owned by UCL, only.
>
>
>
> Gerard
>
> On Sep 3, 2015, at 2:07 AM, Ian McNicoll  wrote:
>
> 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 by a small number of individuals. I have had to ask for these to be
> corrected in a number of documents e.g. The SemanticHealthNet report where
> it was agreed by the principal authors, including Dipak, to be incorrect.
>
> Since a significant number of companies and national organisations now
> make use of openEHR specifications or artefacts, these statements are being
> regarded as commercially hostile and the Foundation Boards both agree that
> legal action should now be taken where the authors are not prepared to
> promptly correct this inaccuracy.
>
> Leaving that aside. I am not convinced that ISO is a good home for
> openEHR. The specifications, development and revision process in ISO remain
> completely closed and quite at odds withopenEHR principles but I would be
> interested in other's views.
>
> I do think that some sort of association with a formal standards body
> would help alleviate some of the anxieties you mention (though these are
> imaginary) but I am not sure that ISO would be my first choice as it is
> currently constructed. I will raise the issue of whether to submit AOM2
> with the Management Board.
>
> I am interested in other people's opinions.
>
> 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, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
> On 1 September 2015 at 16:48, Bert Verhees  wrote:
>
>> On 01-09-15 17:16, Bert Verhees wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32010122/are-the-hl7-fhir-hl7-cda-cimi-openehr-and-iso13606-approaches-aiming-to-solve/
>>>
>>
>> I must add, it is not that I suspect anyone of having secret IP on
>> OpenEHR.
>> I have no reason to suspect this.
>>
>> But I know people who have such suspicions, and having the AOM-part as an
>> ISO standard, surely will fight these rumors.
>>
>> I think it will help OpenEHR-implementations to have more customers.
>>
>> Bert
>>
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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 suddenly be owned by someone else.

ISO, as it states itself, cannot guarantee that a published standard is 
free to use without extra claims afterwards.


Bert





___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

RE: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-03 Thread pablo pazos

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 constraints / freedoms in that area, not in who is the owner.

-- 
Kind regards,
Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
http://cabolabs.com

From: gf...@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 or ownership."the company has a proprietary right to the 
property"behaving as if one owned something or someone."he looked about him 
with a proprietary air"2. (of a product) marketed under and protected by a 
registered trade name."proprietary brands of insecticide"Originlate Middle 
English (as a noun denoting a member of a religious order who held property): 
from late Latin proprietarius ‘proprietor’, from proprietas (see property).
On the openEHR website we all can read about the Legal Status.And that is 
clear, also.OpenEHR specs are owned by the company that is owned by UCL, only.


Gerard
On Sep 3, 2015, at 2:07 AM, Ian McNicoll <i...@freshehr.com> wrote: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 by a small number of 
individuals. I have had to ask for these to be corrected in a number of 
documents e.g. The SemanticHealthNet report where it was agreed by the 
principal authors, including Dipak, to be incorrect.
Since a significant number of companies and national organisations now make use 
of openEHR specifications or artefacts, these statements are being regarded as 
commercially hostile and the Foundation Boards both agree that legal action 
should now be taken where the authors are not prepared to promptly correct this 
inaccuracy.
Leaving that aside. I am not convinced that ISO is a good home for openEHR. The 
specifications, development and revision process in ISO remain completely 
closed and quite at odds withopenEHR principles but I would be interested in 
other's views. 
I do think that some sort of association with a formal standards body would 
help alleviate some of the anxieties you mention (though these are imaginary) 
but I am not sure that ISO would be my first choice as it is currently 
constructed. I will raise the issue of whether to submit AOM2 with the 
Management Board.
I am interested in other people's opinions.
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.mcnicoll@openehr.orgDirector, freshEHR 
Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 1 September 2015 at 16:48, Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl> wrote:
On 01-09-15 17:16, Bert Verhees wrote:


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.



http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32010122/are-the-hl7-fhir-hl7-cda-cimi-openehr-and-iso13606-approaches-aiming-to-solve/
 




I must add, it is not that I suspect anyone of having secret IP on OpenEHR.

I have no reason to suspect this.



But I know people who have such suspicions, and having the AOM-part as an ISO 
standard, surely will fight these rumors.



I think it will help OpenEHR-implementations to have more customers.



Bert



___

openEHR-technical mailing list

openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org

http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org   
  ___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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 constraints / freedoms in that area, not in who is the owner.
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
> http://cabolabs.com 
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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 there is certainly no
hidden IP.
- A statement on the Ocean website and the OpenEHR for all to see, and,
saying that Ocean will never claim IP on the Reference Model and AOM.

That helps too.

Of course there can be others who want to claim IP.
Suddenly someone finding out that OpenEHR is very much like a patent he has.
You cannot be held responsible for that.
You never know which patents are out there. And you cannot always find
them, you need to use the right keywords.

But this can happen to anyone. Also to ISO13606.

You can only speak for yourself and for Ocean.

But that should be enough to fight the rumors.

By the way, I think ISO will be a good idea for AOM2.0

Not only from the IP-protection point of view, but also from the point
of trustworthiness.

A standard can only be safe if it is posted at some acknowledged
standardisation organisation.

That does not need to be ISO, but can be Oasis, OMG, whatever, as long
as it is a organization of good reputation in this context.

I would not build my company on base of a standard which is nowhere
published. I don;t like the idea of Microsoft defacto standards very much.
They always keeping them unstable to have advantage on the market of
being the first to know.

See the document-standard, see the SMB network protocol, see their
HTML-constructs, see many things.
Finally they got a document standard certificated, and now they don't
use it, but stick to their non-standardized formats.

You would not want that for AOM, would you?

Bert

On 03-09-15 02:07, Ian McNicoll wrote:

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 by a small number of individuals. I have had to ask
for these to be corrected in a number of documents e.g. The
SemanticHealthNet report where it was agreed by the principal authors,
including Dipak, to be incorrect.

Since a significant number of companies and national organisations now
make use of openEHR specifications or artefacts, these statements are
being regarded as commercially hostile and the Foundation Boards both
agree that legal action should now be taken where the authors are not
prepared to promptly correct this inaccuracy.

Leaving that aside. I am not convinced that ISO is a good home for
openEHR. The specifications, development and revision process in ISO
remain completely closed and quite at odds withopenEHR principles but
I would be interested in other's views.

I do think that some sort of association with a formal standards body
would help alleviate some of the anxieties you mention (though these
are imaginary) but I am not sure that ISO would be my first choice as
it is currently constructed. I will raise the issue of whether to
submit AOM2 with the Management Board.

I am interested in other people's opinions.

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, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 1 September 2015 at 16:48, Bert Verhees > wrote:

On 01-09-15 17:16, Bert Verhees wrote:

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.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32010122/are-the-hl7-fhir-hl7-cda-cimi-openehr-and-iso13606-approaches-aiming-to-solve/

I must add, it is not that I suspect anyone of having secret IP on
OpenEHR.
I have no reason to suspect this.

But I know people who have such suspicions, and having the
AOM-part as an ISO standard, surely will fight these rumors.

I think it will help OpenEHR-implementations to have more customers.

Bert

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org

http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org

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 claimed on OpenEHR and related 
technologies.

--
Let me explain:

There are two kinds of IP

One is copyright, it is about the literally text of something
One is patents, it is about the idea worded in the text.

I don't know any other form of IP, do you Gerard?
-
The first does not apply, because the text is given open source
So, the publisher waives all rights until the end of days.
-
Then patents, there may be a hidden patent on OpenEHR related things.

There a few things important in the case of patents.

- It may not be based on already existing ideas, that is called prior art.
- The patent owner is obliged to protect its patent, or else laches 
defenses are possible. None ever filed a complaint about patent 
infringement regarding the use of OpenEHR. Now it is too late. Laches 
defenses are possible after 5 years.
- If the patent-owner lulled you in using a technique, so that you 
felled safe to use it, he cannot claim afterwards IP on that.
(Under the doctrine of “equitable estoppel”, the accused infringer must 
have relied on the patentee’s assurance or non-enforcement in choosing 
to continue infringing. The key issue is whether the accused was lulled 
into a false sense of security and evidence that the accused 
detrimentally relied upon it.)


http://www.lawabel.com/patent-damages-laches-and-equitable-estoppel/

So we can safely say that, even if there are patents on OpenEHR, they 
can never be effected anymore.
Not even on a new version of the Reference Model, because that will come 
very close to prior art.

--
But still I think that the OpenEHR-organization should take more action 
to fightr these rumors.


Best regards
Bert Verhees





___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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 misuse of the dictionary definition. Using your interpretation, all 
> free/open projects are proprietary unless both IP and trademarks are made 
> Public Domain. Linus Torvalds is the IP copyright holder and trademark owner 
> of Linux, but because it’s released under a free license, it’s not 
> proprietary software. The same goes for the openEHR Foundation and openEHR 
> specs/artifacts/software.
>  
> Kind regards,
> Silje Ljosland Bakke
>  
> Information Architect, RN
> Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
> National ICT Norway
> 
> 

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

RE: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-03 Thread Bakke, Silje Ljosland

No. The Creative Commons licenses guarantees the free (as in beer) use and 
distribution of the specifications and the free (as in speech) use, 
distribution and improvement of the artifacts. This is what makes openEHR open 
and not proprietary. The organisation of the body holding the copyright 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 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 
<silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no<mailto:silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no>>
 wrote:

This is a misuse of the dictionary definition. Using your interpretation, all 
free/open projects are proprietary unless both IP and trademarks are made 
Public Domain. Linus Torvalds is the IP copyright holder and trademark owner of 
Linux, but because it’s released under a free license, it’s not proprietary 
software. The same goes for the openEHR Foundation and openEHR 
specs/artifacts/software.

Kind regards,
Silje Ljosland Bakke

Information Architect, RN
Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
National ICT Norway


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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 proprietary ?

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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 trolling this list and do your homework. If you would have 
> Googled on ‘open standards’ you would have found the following list of 
> definitions of an open standard on Wiki.
> 
> Please tell us according to which of these definitions OpenEHR isn’t an open 
> standard. If you can’t name one please shut up.
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> Stef
> 
> ——

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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 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 claimed on OpenEHR and related technologies.
> --
> Let me explain:
> 
> There are two kinds of IP
> 
> One is copyright, it is about the literally text of something
> One is patents, it is about the idea worded in the text.
> 
> I don't know any other form of IP, do you Gerard?
> -
> The first does not apply, because the text is given open source
> So, the publisher waives all rights until the end of days.
> -
> Then patents, there may be a hidden patent on OpenEHR related things.
> 
> There a few things important in the case of patents.
> 
> - It may not be based on already existing ideas, that is called prior art.
> - The patent owner is obliged to protect its patent, or else laches defenses 
> are possible. None ever filed a complaint about patent infringement regarding 
> the use of OpenEHR. Now it is too late. Laches defenses are possible after 5 
> years.
> - If the patent-owner lulled you in using a technique, so that you felled 
> safe to use it, he cannot claim afterwards IP on that.
> (Under the doctrine of “equitable estoppel”, the accused infringer must have 
> relied on the patentee’s assurance or non-enforcement in choosing to continue 
> infringing. The key issue is whether the accused was lulled into a false 
> sense of security and evidence that the accused detrimentally relied upon it.)
> 
> http://www.lawabel.com/patent-damages-laches-and-equitable-estoppel/ 
> 
> 
> So we can safely say that, even if there are patents on OpenEHR, they can 
> never be effected anymore.
> Not even on a new version of the Reference Model, because that will come very 
> close to prior art.
> --
> But still I think that the OpenEHR-organization should take more action to 
> fightr these rumors.
> 
> Best regards
> Bert Verhees

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

2015-09-03 Thread Thomas Beale



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 
attribution of the original author(s) remains visible.


This is how all open source IP works. This is why it is called 'open'. 
You will find for example that the Linux kernel is 'owned' by Linus 
Torvalds. But the ownership is irrelevant because of the licence under 
which it is available.


There is no dependency of openEHR IP on proprietary specifications of 
any kind - that is objectively demonstrable. The only reason I can 
imagine that openEHR's open licenced IP could have encountered problems 
in any European country is due to the presence of bureaucrats with an 
understanding of open source / commons licencing as obtuse as your own. 
Or perhaps they were coached?


- thomas

On 04/09/2015 05:46, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote:

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 definition of ‘open standard’, openEHR is an open 
Standard

but owned by as single company.

I know for certain that this fact prohibited serious business in some 
European countries, some years ago.
Because of the licensing and dependency on proprietary specifications, 
the artifacts produced were not controllable by the user/customer.
This was their reason, after legal consultation, not to use software 
based on openEHR specifications.




___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

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 user?


Both questions have NO as an answer.
I explained in my previous message why I say this.

Is their another form of IP which works restrictive for the user?

Also this question has NO as an answer.

Thanks
Bert


On 03-09-15 13:00, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote:
n 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 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 claimed on OpenEHR and related 
technologies.

--
Let me explain:

There are two kinds of IP

One is copyright, it is about the literally text of something
One is patents, it is about the idea worded in the text.

I don't know any other form of IP, do you Gerard?


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO