I wrote it confusing, so I try again, it is because English is not my first language and the subject is a bit complicated to explain in another language..
There is no IP-claim on any part of the kernel-concept, except from on the literally text of the specification (copyright) So anyone building a kernel can license it to his customers as he wants, open source, closed source, whatever. There is no payment at all required to the OpenEHR-foundation. When using sourcecode trom the OpenEHR-website, one must comply to the terms agreed when using that sourcecode. That can differ. But one can always (without any payment done to who-ever) write a kernel from scratch and sell it to who-ever he wants for any price which seems reasonable. I hope it is clear now. If someone disagrees please report this. Also if Gerard Freriks disagrees I would like him to report this, and discuss this. Thanks Bert Verhees Op 10-2-2010 17:24, Bert Verhees schreef: > Please consider the previous as not being send. Thank you > > Op 10-02-10 15:35, Gerard Freriks schreef: >> Stef, >> >> It is a good step. >> But not sufficient. >> > >> That OpenEHR artifacts are published with such a Creative Commons License >> policy attached to it is a good thing, I agree. >> But when a new Reference Model, Archetype Model, Template models change and >> are published that decision is made by the owners because they own the IP >> and can issue any new License policy they wish. >> >> Our customers do not want to be held hostage when they invest in the exiting >> new technology based on En13606/openEHR. >> They are taking enough risks already, they feel. >> > Then minutes ago you did not now about this, you were talking about > the organization-model which would impose IP? > No that is proven wrong and still you know it is not sufficient? > How do you know what you customers feel about this new knowledge you > just (ten minutes ago) heard of? > > I come back to this later, because your remarks do raise questions. > > (IP = intellectual property) > > _Anyone considering using OpenEHR, read carefully_ > > It is impossible to attach IP to an RM-implementation to build. It is > not patented, so anyone can build an implementation. > Same story for the Archetype Model. > The only thing that can carry IP is a RM-implementation (copyright) > but that is as with any software-product you license. > > You can only protect an idea by patents, there is no other way. You > can protect an implementation of an (ICT) idea by copyright on > sourcecode, but that only applies to the specific implementation. > > So we must ask: Is there a patenting application? Do you know, does it > seem likely? > > To me it does not. > Let me explain: > > As soon as the OpenEhR foundation would consider that, it would be a > big problem because many people volunteered, and I think OpenEHR would > be quickly out of business. > In my opinion it is impossible to patent it because many people > volunteered, and a lot can be considered as "prior art". > We also have the lache-doctrine. You cannot patent anything which you > let people use for years. > > I think an patent-application on the OpenEHR: RM or AOM is impossible. > > So if it is not patented, anyone can build an implementation without > considering any IP. That is very sure. I have dealt a lot with patents. > > Anyone who does business with me can go to a lawyer to check, and if > it is not true what I write in here, I pay the lawyer-bill. > > Conclusion: OpenEHR-foundation has no IP on implementations. > Maybe there is IP on the published archetypes, IP in the form of > copyright. I don't know. But if that is the case anyone is free to > create his own archetypes, IP-free. > > _end of subject_ > > It looks to me as if you are looking for ways to publicly discouraging > hospitals to use OpenEHR. Why is that? > > What is the matter Gerard? You used OpenEHR for years, you invested > lots of time and money, even build your own implementation, and now > you discovered that you cannot use it? That you have to pay? > Where you sleeping that you did not think about these urgent > IP-questions you bring up here? > > A strange story. > > regards > Bert Verhees > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100210/ec001ef4/attachment.html>
