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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt> 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 <i...@freshehr.com> 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 > 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 >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
