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)" <gf...@luna.nl> 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 <bert.verh...@rosa.nl> 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 >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
