Hi William, RFC - Request for Comment http://www.rfc-editor.org/RFCoverview.html
-SA - Share-alike clause of a CC-BY-SA licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ which applies to openEHR -published artefacts. Basically you are free to use as long as you continue to share any forked versions on the same basis. The SA is designed to prevent people re-commercialising the artefacts themselves, not to prevent their use in commercial systems but there is some anxiety that this is potentially confusing and off-putting. We have discussed dropping the SA clause. Let's be careful not to confuse 'open' and 'free'. Just because archetypes are 'open' does not mean that the work done should not be paid for. In practice, this is more difficult via an open licence vs. a proprietary licence but I think we are starting to see recognition that if international archetyping is to be made sustainable, that it must be funded in some way. 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 6 September 2015 at 23:05, William Goossen <wgoos...@results4care.nl> wrote: > Dear all, > > Can anyone explain what ND, SA and RFC stand for? > > I personally do not believe in free standards. Standards come at a cost, > is the work put in to it and the travels etc for consensus meetings. > > We at NEN have deliberately added a price tag to volunteer work put into a > standard. Not for being paid, but to get a valid idea of how much people > put in to it. > > The other thing is how to keep such work sustainable in the long run. If > someone makes a business eg from software that runs on "free" archetypes, > who will pay the archetype maker? > > No simple solution I am afraid > > Met vriendelijke groet / With kind regards, > > > dr. William T.F. Goossen > > > directeur Results 4 Care B.V. > De Stinse 15 > 3823 VM Amersfoort > the Netherlands > > telefoon +31654614458 > > e-mail: wgoos...@results4care.nl > dcmhelpd...@results4care.eu > skype: williamgoossenmobiel > kamer van koophandel 32133713 > http://www.results4care.nl > http://www.results4care.eu > http://results4care.wikispaces.com/ > http://www.linkedin.com/company/711047 > http://results4care.wikispaces.com/3.+Cursussen+Nederlands > ------------------------------ > Van: openehr-technical-requ...@lists.openehr.org > Verzonden: 6-9-2015 22:48 > Aan: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org > Onderwerp: openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 43, Issue 22 > > Send openEHR-technical mailing list submissions to > openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > openehr-technical-requ...@lists.openehr.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > openehr-technical-ow...@lists.openehr.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of openEHR-technical digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Advantage of ISO (Ian McNicoll) > 2. Re: Advantage of ISO (Bert Verhees) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 21:18:47 +0100 > From: Ian McNicoll <i...@freshehr.com> > To: For openEHR technical discussions > <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> > Subject: Re: Advantage of ISO > Message-ID: > <CAG-n1KyBsSwXOhSY=N=k66b0bzs1mm0e4ybjq9jbejbox8c...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > 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 (priv?)" <gf...@luna.nl> > 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 Bosc? <yamp...@gmail.com> 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150906/7292e712/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2015 22:48:36 +0200 > From: Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl> > To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org > Subject: Re: Advantage of ISO > Message-ID: <55eca6a4.8080...@rosa.nl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" > > 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 <mailto:i...@freshehr.com> > > twitter: @ianmcnicoll > > > > Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org > > <mailto: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 (priv?)" <gf...@luna.nl > > <mailto:gf...@luna.nl>> 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 <tel:%2B31%20620347088> > > gf...@luna.nl <mailto:gf...@luna.nl> > > > >> On 4 sep. 2015, at 21:58, Diego Bosc? <yamp...@gmail.com > >> <mailto:yamp...@gmail.com>> 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 > >> <mailto: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 > >> <mailto: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 > > <mailto: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 > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150906/6ed8784a/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > ------------------------------ > > End of openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 43, Issue 22 > ************************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > 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
