Fwd: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives
It seems that this message didn't make it to the openhealth list. apologies if did and this is a repeat. Tim Churches -- Forwarded message -- From: Tim Churches [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 1 Dec 2007 12:57 Subject: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives To: OSHCA Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], openhealth@yahoogroups.com Molly Cheah wrote: Dear all, In view of the type of posts to these lists and that I do not wish to be drawn to the same type of exchanges that led to the demise of OSHCA from 2003-2006, I would like to make the following statement. Besides, I do not have the time, interest and energy to do this, particularly for the next 2-3 weeks. I was given the mandate to resurrect OSHCA with the following outcomes. 1. To register OSHCA in a developing country. (Done) 2. To organise OSHCA conference after registration (Done) 3. To obtain funding to organise the OSHCA conference (Done) 4. To take over oshca.org from Minouru Corporation for OSHCA (Done) I am a member of OSHCA in my personal capacity. Though I am the President of PCDOM, PCDOM's membership (as Associate, NGO) is being represented by PCDOM's Hon. Secretary. PCDOM's ownership of PrimaCare and therefore its policies, rights and freedom to manage and sustain PrimaCare is governed by its constitution and its contract with the Malaysian Government who funded the development of PrimaCare solely for the use of GPs in Malaysia. As an advocate of open source, I was instrumental (not sole decision maker) in getting PCDOM to agree to develop PrimaCare using an entire stack of open source software. I was invited to present PrimaCare at OSHCA2002 at LA. That was the start of my association with OSHCA. If one looks at any presentations of PrimaCare anywhere and anytime, it was never mentioned that PrimaCare was released under GPL. In fact PrimaCare was never released except to GPs in Malaysia. My past verbal statements had always been that the principles underlying the GPL can be applied to the manner we currently distribute PrimaCare to GPs. However, PCDOM has its legal commitment to the Malaysian Government, its community being the GPs in Malaysia and no one else. However, PCDOM is interested in making PrimaCare available to organisations outside Malaysia under an appropriate open source license (with Malaysian Govt approval). Thank you for that clarification, Dr Cheah. I only wish you had deigned to respond several weeks ago, when these issues were first raised, rather than treat us all with what I can only regard as a truculent silence. Anyway, at least we are all now absolutely clear that PCDOM PrimaCare is not an open source application: it is not freely available under an open source license. Phew, that was like getting blood out of a stone, but mission accomplished! *Article 4 - Aims and Objectives* OSHCA is a non-profit organisation that provides the collaborative platform and forum to promote and facilitate Free/Open Source Software in Health Care. OSHCA's membership comprises a community of people, civil societies and professional bodies in health care and informatics industries that promotes the Free/Open Source Software Concepts in Health Care. OSHCA helps policy makers, commercial enterprises, and users take advantage of the benefits of Free/Open Source Software. *4.1 - Vision:* Free/Open Source Health Care Software will provide a viable and sustainable alternative in mainstream Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for positive impact in health outcomes as adjunct to building a global knowledge society. *4.2 - **Mission:* *4.2.1 - *Promote to policy makers the concept of Free/Open Source Software in Health Care so as to adopt or give equal opportunity to Free/Open Source Solutions. *4.2.2 - *Provide leadership role in refining the Free/Open Source Software Concepts as applied to health care to ensure best practices and patient safety are not compromised. *4.2.3 - *Make recommendations on the development and use of Health Information Standards for data interchange and representation formalisms. *4.2.4 - *Provide Guidelines for Quality Control on Free/Open Source Health Care Software development. *4.2.5 - *Participate in and support Human Capacity Building, including contributing/participating in project proposals and project management to achieve developing country priorities. *4.2.6 - *Enable collaboration of members including, sharing technical knowledge in Free/Open Source Health Care Projects and providing Information Resources to Free/Open Source Health Care software developers. *4.2.7 - *Promote and help the formation of development consortia for health care related projects, including assisting in finding funding for projects to reach critical mass for a visible and lasting impact on health related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). *4.2.8 - *Use collaboration with strategic
Fwd: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives
Likewise - apologies if this is a repeat. Tim C -- Forwarded message -- From: Tim Churches [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 1 Dec 2007 17:08 Subject: Re: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives To: OSHCA Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: openhealth@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Molly Cheah wrote: And Tim, please do me a favour by emailing the Hon Secretary of PCDOM at [EMAIL PROTECTED] pcdom%40ocdom.org.my rather than stating on these mailing lists and tell them that you believe that PCDOM's promotion of PrimaCare as an open source tool is not correct, thus implying that PCDOM is unethical. I have forwarded a copy of my previous post to the PCDOM address you give. As I said, PCDOM needs to be very cautious and ultra-scrupulous about how it represents its PrimaCare software, simply because you are the President of both PCDOM and OSHCA. If that nexus didn't exist, i would not be particularly concerned. Tim Churches Molly Cheah wrote: No Tim. That was Tims' intepretation of what is open source. Frankly, PCDOM was being careful of building up its business model and its strategic alliances with organisations to ensure sustainability and accountability issues which are being built into its PCDOM PrimaCare Public License; one that is similar to OpenMRS's Public License. (Please see OpenMRS's license as guide if you are that interested at http://www.openmrs.org) Admittedly PCDOM is slower that OpenMRS efforts but really we didn't wanted to be torched like the past experiences of other open source projects promoted especially by individuals. Like I said PCDOM will make that available when they are ready, not by being harrassed by the so-called open source individuals. PCDOM, as a professional organisation, unlike individuals who promote a particular application which folds up and can go away, were advised to take sufficient steps in its licensing to ensure that it is indemnified for the freedom to make changes by others that compromise patient safety. Currently the law in Malaysia on patient safety does not recognise statements that does or does not provide warranty of the application (tool) used in patient care. I will bring this issue to the attention of the PCDOM Committee at their next meeting for their action. Molly Tim Cook wrote: Thanks for the clarification that Primacare is not open source. Regards, Tim On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 12:57 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: Molly Cheah wrote: Dear all, In view of the type of posts to these lists and that I do not wish to be drawn to the same type of exchanges that led to the demise of OSHCA from 2003-2006, I would like to make the following statement. Besides, I do not have the time, interest and energy to do this, particularly for the next 2-3 weeks. I was given the mandate to resurrect OSHCA with the following outcomes. 1. To register OSHCA in a developing country. (Done) 2. To organise OSHCA conference after registration (Done) 3. To obtain funding to organise the OSHCA conference (Done) 4. To take over oshca.org from Minouru Corporation for OSHCA (Done) I am a member of OSHCA in my personal capacity. Though I am the President of PCDOM, PCDOM's membership (as Associate, NGO) is being represented by PCDOM's Hon. Secretary. PCDOM's ownership of PrimaCare and therefore its policies, rights and freedom to manage and sustain PrimaCare is governed by its constitution and its contract with the Malaysian Government who funded the development of PrimaCare solely for the use of GPs in Malaysia. As an advocate of open source, I was instrumental (not sole decision maker) in getting PCDOM to agree to develop PrimaCare using an entire stack of open source software. I was invited to present PrimaCare at OSHCA2002 at LA. That was the start of my association with OSHCA. If one looks at any presentations of PrimaCare anywhere and anytime, it was never mentioned that PrimaCare was released under GPL. In fact PrimaCare was never released except to GPs in Malaysia. My past verbal statements had always been that the principles underlying the GPL can be applied to the manner we currently distribute PrimaCare to GPs. However, PCDOM has its legal commitment to the Malaysian Government, its community being the GPs in Malaysia and no one else. However, PCDOM is interested in making PrimaCare available to organisations outside Malaysia under an appropriate open source license (with Malaysian Govt approval). Thank you for that clarification, Dr Cheah. I only wish you had deigned to respond several weeks ago, when these issues were first raised, rather than treat us all with what I can only regard as a truculent silence. Anyway, at least we are all now absolutely clear that PCDOM PrimaCare is not an open source application: it is not freely available under an open source license. Phew, that was like getting blood out of a
Fwd: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives
Last message forwarded to openhealth list. Tim C -- Forwarded message -- From: Tim Churches [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 1 Dec 2007 17:03 Subject: Re: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives To: OSHCA Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: openhealth@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Molly Cheah wrote: No Tim. That was Tims' intepretation of what is open source. Frankly, PCDOM was being careful of building up its business model and its strategic alliances with organisations to ensure sustainability and accountability issues which are being built into its PCDOM PrimaCare Public License; one that is similar to OpenMRS's Public License. (Please see OpenMRS's license as guide if you are that interested at http://www.openmrs.org) Admittedly PCDOM is slower that OpenMRS efforts but really we didn't wanted to be torched like the past experiences of other open source projects promoted especially by individuals. Like I said PCDOM will make that available when they are ready, not by being harrassed by the so-called open source individuals. When source code for PCDOM PrimaCare is made freely available under a license similar to the OpenMRS license (which is a minor modification of the Mozilla Public License), then PCDOM Primacare will be open source. However, until that time, it is categorically not open source. An application or project is not open source by future intention, it is open source by virtue of its current licensing and distribution arrangements. As I said, there should be absolutely no pressure placed on PCDOM to license and distribute PrimaCare under an open source license. However, what is unacceptable - to me at least, and I think it should be to OSHCA as an organisation as well - is any attempt for PCDOM to promote or pass off its PrimaCare product/application/service as open source when the source code for it is not, in fact, currently freely available under an open source license. It is fine for PCDOM to say that PrimaCare runs on an entire open source stack or uses only open source infrastructure, but it must not say or give the impression that PrimaCare is itself an open source application. It can say that it intends to make PrimaCare an open source application in the future, but it must not claim such status until the open source licensing and distribution has actually occurred. Perhaps all this seems like I am splitting hairs, but in this case, it does matter. Why am I so concerned about PrimaCare in particular? Because the protemp President of OSHCA is also the President of PCDOM, the organisation behind PrimaCare. Therefore it is essential that PCDOM is circumspect and ultra-scrupulous about how it presents the licensing arrangements for PrimaCare, else the worth of the concept of open source healthcare software, which OSHCA is trying to promote, is seriously degraded. Tim Churches Tim Cook wrote: Thanks for the clarification that Primacare is not open source. Regards, Tim On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 12:57 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: Molly Cheah wrote: Dear all, In view of the type of posts to these lists and that I do not wish to be drawn to the same type of exchanges that led to the demise of OSHCA from 2003-2006, I would like to make the following statement. Besides, I do not have the time, interest and energy to do this, particularly for the next 2-3 weeks. I was given the mandate to resurrect OSHCA with the following outcomes. 1. To register OSHCA in a developing country. (Done) 2. To organise OSHCA conference after registration (Done) 3. To obtain funding to organise the OSHCA conference (Done) 4. To take over oshca.org from Minouru Corporation for OSHCA (Done) I am a member of OSHCA in my personal capacity. Though I am the President of PCDOM, PCDOM's membership (as Associate, NGO) is being represented by PCDOM's Hon. Secretary. PCDOM's ownership of PrimaCare and therefore its policies, rights and freedom to manage and sustain PrimaCare is governed by its constitution and its contract with the Malaysian Government who funded the development of PrimaCare solely for the use of GPs in Malaysia. As an advocate of open source, I was instrumental (not sole decision maker) in getting PCDOM to agree to develop PrimaCare using an entire stack of open source software. I was invited to present PrimaCare at OSHCA2002 at LA. That was the start of my association with OSHCA. If one looks at any presentations of PrimaCare anywhere and anytime, it was never mentioned that PrimaCare was released under GPL. In fact PrimaCare was never released except to GPs in Malaysia. My past verbal statements had always been that the principles underlying the GPL can be applied to the manner we currently distribute PrimaCare to GPs. However, PCDOM has its legal commitment to the Malaysian Government, its community being the GPs in Malaysia and no one else. However, PCDOM is interested in
Re: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives
Molly Cheah wrote: No Tim. That was Tims' intepretation of what is open source. Frankly, PCDOM was being careful of building up its business model and its strategic alliances with organisations to ensure sustainability and accountability issues which are being built into its PCDOM PrimaCare Public License; one that is similar to OpenMRS's Public License. Open Source applications are applications licenced under a licence listed at the the Open Source Initiative. PCDOM is not licenced under a licence listed at the the Open Source Initiative. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical Therefore, PCDOM is not an Open Source application. (Please see OpenMRS's license as guide if you are that interested at http://www.openmrs.org http://www.openmrs.org) Interesting, but not a licence under which PCDOM or any component of it has been (stated to have been) distributed. Thus far the licence under which PCDOM has been reported on these lists to have been distributed is you may not redistribute this software or its source code. Which is not a licence listed as OS at the OSI. Closed source software is legal, some of it is virtuous, by design its licences are extremely crisply specific. The difficulty in coming to a clearly agreed statement of what the licencing regime is for a piece of software is curious. OSHCA and these lists have been intended to help people to do difficult things more easily. Setting the correct licence, giving an unarguably correct description of software running on a properly described platform, progressing toward opening the source code of a medical system are all difficult tasks worthy of interest, assistance and discussion. Any chinks left in the licencing or commentaries around it will be exploited by vendors of closed source systems, and politically it is undesirable to make or leave those openings. -- A
Re: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives
On 12/01/2007 12:18 AM, Molly Cheah wrote: No Tim. That was Tims' intepretation of what is open source. Frankly, [KSB] If (former US President) Bill Clinton could raise an ambiguity about the word is, there is probably room for interpretation of open source. Here are some places to read what others have to say: http://opensource.org/docs/osd http://www.us.debian.org/intro/free http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html I realize that I am mixing the terms open source and free software to some extent, but they both mean very much the same thing in my mind, and differences are amplified by personality clashes rather than differences in meaning. [Many movements have charismatic leaders with strong personalities and deeply held convictions - sometimes wrong, but never in doubt.] [KSB] ...snip... Currently the law in Malaysia on patient safety does not recognise statements that does or does not provide warranty of the application (tool) used in patient care. [KSB] This is truly unfortunate. Extrapolating, under Malaysian law, if I were to create a very sharp obsidian cutting instrument, I would seem to be violating patient safety, whether or not I provide a warranty that it is suitable for use as a scalpel. [KSB] ... Many of us wear multiple hats. 90% of the time, it does not matter which hat we are wearing, but it is critical to clarify which hat is being worn when speaking if there is the possibility of ambiguity. Also, it is not actual ambiguity in our minds that matters - it is the potential for ambiguity in the minds of the recipient as well as those who may read or hear those words downstream, possibly in a different context. For example, I wear (at least) three hats: - I manage GT.M, where we are trying to build a business based on software released under the GPL. - I co-founded, and serve on the board of, WorldVistA, a non-profitable charitable organization that advocates the use of affordable healthcare IT through the use of VistA. - I recently started a term on the board of the VistA Software Alliance, a trade group. When I advocate WorldVistA EHR, I need to be sure that the person I am not speaking for VSA (which advocates all flavors of VistA, not just WorldVistA EHR). Also, wearing my WorldVistA hat, I must be neutral about the platform that VistA is deployed on, which I don't have to be when I wear my GT.M hat. Life presents us with many opportunities to be misunderstood. Regards -- Bhaskar __ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. _
Re: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives
Many of us wear multiple hats. 90% of the time, it does not matter which hat we are wearing, but it is critical to clarify which hat is being worn when speaking if there is the possibility of ambiguity. Also, it is not actual ambiguity in our minds that matters - it is the potential for ambiguity in the minds of the recipient as well as those who may read or hear those words downstream, possibly in a different context. the above reminds me of a quote I heard last week at a Harvard Med. School conference: there is no better antiseptic than sunlight The basic lesson in this discussion from a business perspective is that transparency is a critical success factor if an organization/individual/company wants to position themselves as an open source solution provider. This issue has presented itself at least a couple of times on openhealth and elsewhere... Joseph K.S. Bhaskar wrote: On 12/01/2007 12:18 AM, Molly Cheah wrote: No Tim. That was Tims' intepretation of what is open source. Frankly, [KSB] If (former US President) Bill Clinton could raise an ambiguity about the word is, there is probably room for interpretation of open source. Here are some places to read what others have to say: http://opensource.org/docs/osd http://www.us.debian.org/intro/free http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html I realize that I am mixing the terms open source and free software to some extent, but they both mean very much the same thing in my mind, and differences are amplified by personality clashes rather than differences in meaning. [Many movements have charismatic leaders with strong personalities and deeply held convictions - sometimes wrong, but never in doubt.] [KSB] ...snip... Currently the law in Malaysia on patient safety does not recognise statements that does or does not provide warranty of the application (tool) used in patient care. [KSB] This is truly unfortunate. Extrapolating, under Malaysian law, if I were to create a very sharp obsidian cutting instrument, I would seem to be violating patient safety, whether or not I provide a warranty that it is suitable for use as a scalpel. [KSB] ... Many of us wear multiple hats. 90% of the time, it does not matter which hat we are wearing, but it is critical to clarify which hat is being worn when speaking if there is the possibility of ambiguity. Also, it is not actual ambiguity in our minds that matters - it is the potential for ambiguity in the minds of the recipient as well as those who may read or hear those words downstream, possibly in a different context. For example, I wear (at least) three hats: - I manage GT.M, where we are trying to build a business based on software released under the GPL. - I co-founded, and serve on the board of, WorldVistA, a non-profitable charitable organization that advocates the use of affordable healthcare IT through the use of VistA. - I recently started a term on the board of the VistA Software Alliance, a trade group. When I advocate WorldVistA EHR, I need to be sure that the person I am not speaking for VSA (which advocates all flavors of VistA, not just WorldVistA EHR). Also, wearing my WorldVistA hat, I must be neutral about the platform that VistA is deployed on, which I don't have to be when I wear my GT.M hat. Life presents us with many opportunities to be misunderstood. Regards -- Bhaskar __ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. _ Yahoo! Groups Links .
[openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [oshca_members] Why is open source fidelity is important to health care and what should OSHCA do?]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[openhealth] Re: [FOSS_health] [Fwd: Re: [oshca_members] Why is open source fidelity is important to health care and what should OSHCA do?]
The needs of the developing world is very different from that in the developed world, hence GK3 that will address ICT4D targetting the developing world where achieving the MDGs is still a dream while that has been achieved in the developed world. I respectfully have to disagree.I have had the privilege over the past few years to experience and now work in both. I'm sorry to say that in reality the developed world has areas whose needs are almost identical.all you have to do is visit one of aboriginal reserves here in Canada, or the slums of any large US city and experience how many homeless people and others go without any decent health care. Compare the infant mortality rates in the US to Cuba's (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/opinion/12kris.html)which is the developing country? The cultural contexts may be different, but a tremendous number of hospitals and clinics in the developed world cannot afford high quality health information technology and don't have any to speak offar too many are still paper based and have no clinical systems. The developed world has its own internal digital divides that will benefit from collaboration with the developing world and vice versa. Dividing the world up into islands of development and automation fails to take advantage of one of the most important strengths of the open source model. VistA is actually a good example of how you can go overboard focusing on a local/regionsl context. The implementations in Germany and Egypt which took place several years ago now have forked and stagnated to the point which they have not been able to take advantage of significant innovations. The German system is still roll and scrollVistA pre 1998. That's why we put the World in WorldVistA WorldCup not WorldSeries :-) Yes there is a need to coordinate in regional cultural contextsbut the fundamental issues we are facing are the same across the world and working collaboratively will enable us to solve them faster, and in a way that can lead to lasting evidence based continuous improvement. The challenges of health care are universalperhaps I am overly idealistic...but I believe that solving them together will make the world a safer, happier place for everyone. Joseph Molly Cheah wrote: Subject: Re: [oshca_members] Why is open source fidelity is important to health care and what should OSHCA do? From: Molly Cheah [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 06:54:16 +0800 To: OSHCA Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: OSHCA Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED] These are the same issues when debating the resurrection of OSHCA and when discussing who/what should be accepted for presenting at the OSHCA 2007 conference. The needs of the developing world is very different from that in the developed world, hence GK3 that will address ICT4D targetting the developing world where achieving the MDGs is still a dream while that has been achieved in the developed world. A look at most of the successful business models using open source technologies today are seen in the west, including the uptake of VistA which some of us are still trying to bring to the developing world. OSHCA has provision for chapters in Asia, Europe, North American, Latin America Caribbean, Africa Middle East, East Europe Central Asia and Oceania and we have members from ALL these places. Article 4 of its constitution also provides the principles where members from different regions can take the lead to evolve different projects with different focus to meet their own priorities and needs, without having to enforce their own interests on others. That's how OSHCA can be strengthened, if members want to see it strengthened. Please go ahead and do that rather than talk about other platforms. So what are you guys from the developed world waiting for? As I have said before, my interest is to see the use of oss (of any kind) in the health care sector in the developing world and to address capacity building for the use of oss. Molly Joseph Dal Molin wrote: Something to think about Tim: would embedding collaboration in something like IMIA impose any barriers to entry such as having to pay a significant fee to joinand does the charter or culture of that or any other organization impose any restrictions or political baggage etc. that get in the way. If it costs money to join for example, you are already imposing a tax on collaboration and volunteering. Personally I have found that the overhead and cultural speed bumps of the big informatics associations offset the benefits they bringwhat I think is needed and has been rather elusive so far is a simple mechanism to establish project to project collaboration among highly distributed projects with often overlapping goals, while avoiding the not
