Bert,
my comments relate to software only, contributed by companies and other
organisations at their own development expense.
It has nothing to do with specifications, nor specification-related
computational artefacts (grammars, XSDs, and the like). These are all
issued by the foundation, copyrighted to the foundation and will always
be free to use under all circumstances, as has always been the case for
15 years. This will never change.
- thomas
On 09/09/2015 17:24, Bert Verhees wrote:
On 09-09-15 04:20, Thomas Beale wrote:
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.
We must not forget, this discussion (the ND-part) is in the context of
the specifications, and specifications is NOT software.
If you are going to ask money for the specifications, or
membership-construction, OpenEHR is not anymore open.
And most important, you cannot close down this version the OpenEHR
specs, because you have given it to the world with the right to share it.
It will always compete with your paid version on the market. So the
AOM-part and other more technical parts will be stable and for free
for coming decade.
The Reference Model can change version and in a new version close down
the free distribution, but many can write a Reference Model.
I, personally, consider the Reference Model as least innovative.
We have so many Reference Models, Tim Cook created one, Grahame Grieve
created one, the guys from 13606 created one.
And don't forget the current version of the Reference Model.
Even in the Netherlands there are a few as datamodel which can easily
be converted to a two level Reference Model.
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
