Hi Sam,
> Let's stay with the issue of how we stop someone copyrighting and charging
> for a specialised archetype? Or a template that is fundamental to health
> care (like an antenatal visit)?
>
> Cheers, Sam
>
Why we need to define a license to stop someone to copyright or charge for a
spec
Hi!
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 16:54, Sam Heard
> wrote:
>> Let's stay with the issue of how we stop someone copyrighting and charging
>> for a specialised archetype? Or a template that is fundamental to health
>> care (like an antenatal visit)?
So, Sam have you finally dropped the thought that C
Well that may be true but government agencies and companies will want to know
that no one has recourse to legal action if they use an archetype.
Cheers Sam
Sent from my phone
On 09/09/2011, at 8:21 AM, Timothy Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 16:54, Sam Heard
> wrote:
>> Hi Tom
>>
>> I
Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing
> question
>
> On 07/09/2011 21:46, Sam Heard wrote:
> > Thanks Stef
> >
> > The previous Board did not want to make an error and use too loose a
> > licence given that there is no going back.
> >
>
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 16:54, Sam Heard
wrote:
> Hi Tom
>
> It is normal practice with CC to include clarifications and the whole
> structure of the license is designed to do this.
>
> Let's stay with the issue of how we stop someone copyrighting and charging
> for a specialised archetype? Or a t
regards,
> > Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
> > LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
> > Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
> >
> >> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 19:13:45 +0300
> >> Subject:
Hi Tim,
It is tangled up with the CC-BY-SA question. Some one needs to have the
copyright or there is a license agreement that is evoked as you enter the the
archetype in the repository.
Our advice was that having copyright simplifies the world. Having said that the
same archetypes now exist i
Thanks Stef
The previous Board did not want to make an error and use too loose a licence
given that there is no going back.
Our concern is that someone could specialize an archetype and claim copyright,
or create a template and do the same. It is our intention at this stage to have
a specific
Thank you Shinji, this is an excellent idea - to really put support for
language and other localization at the heart. I would propose that one
Organisation become an associate and manage local activites - which
Organisation should be by a vote of local associates.
This prevents the need for a l
On 07/09/2011 21:46, Sam Heard wrote:
> Thanks Stef
>
> The previous Board did not want to make an error and use too loose a
> licence given that there is no going back.
>
> Our concern is that someone could specialize an archetype and claim
> copyright, or create a template and do the same. It i
Tim,
There are two possibilities for archetypes that are donated to a place
like CKM in openEHR.org.
1. copyright remains with the originator
2. copyright goes to the publisher, which could be openEHR.org, or some
national e-health programme, or some other body
When there is a license attache
log: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
>
>> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 19:13:45 +0300
>> Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question
>> From: skoba at moss.gr.jp
>> To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Sam,
Just to be clear. Is it yours and the boards intent that all
archetypes and templates be marked as copyright openEHR Foundation?
Thanks.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 15:46, Sam Heard
wrote:
> Thanks Stef
> The previous Board did not want to make an error and use too loose a licence
> given tha
Op 7 sep 2011, om 09:55 heeft Erik Sundvall het volgende geschreven:
> Do read that wikipage and follow the links there to the mail
> discussions. What is it that you think is missing or unclear in the
> arguments against SA?
That they're hidden in a lot of text form which one has to follow th
:45 +0300
> > Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question
> > From: skoba at moss.gr.jp
> > To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have been suffered by sever jet lag after long trip, while I have
&g
Hi Stef!
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 22:15, Stef Verlinden wrote:
> Good that you bring up the SA + or - discussion again.
I wish I wouldn't have to. I'd rather focus on implementation and research.
> In order to make the
> best decision can you please provide us with these arguments
The arguments
Hi Diego,
I have responded to your comments on the Clinical list under
openEHR Transition: Community Knowledge repository
as I think this a topic which properly belongs there and absolutely
merits further discussion.
Regards,
Ian
Dr Ian McNicoll
office +44 (0)1536 414 994
fax +44 (0)1536 51631
Hi Eric,
Good that you bring up the SA + or - discussion again. In order to make the
best decision can you please provide us with these arguments and, if possible,
with the names of those companies/organisations.
Cheers,
Stef
Op 6 sep 2011, om 16:51 heeft Erik Sundvall het volgende geschreve
Hi All,
I have been suffered by sever jet lag after long trip, while I have
been thinking about this new white
paper and our local activity. I could not find such localisation
activity in this white paper, but please
consider and mention about such local activity.
I would like to show these two pr
Good to hear about you! I hope everything is ok in Japan.
I would encourage you to put the archetypes on the CKM anyway, as I would
say that most of the available archetypes on the repository are in the
same situation as your archetypes (the implicit 'use under your own
responsibility')
2011/9/6 S
Hi Ian!
Nice to have more than one single board member to actually discuss
with on the lists, this is already a great openEHR improvement!
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:07, Ian McNicoll
wrote:
> The issue of CC-BY vs. CC-BY-SA has, of course, been extensively
> discussed and although the previous bo
Hi Erik,
As one of the new transitional board members I would like to thank you
for your comments and suggestions.
I don't think any of us would consider the White Paper as near to
being a finished article but there was consensus that, given the long
wait, it was good enough to go to the openEHR
om/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 19:13:45 +0300
> Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question
> From: skoba at moss.gr.jp
> To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
>
> H
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
_
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 21:49:01 +0100
Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing
Thanks for replying Sam!
Erik Wrote (to openEHR-technical at openehr.org):
>> Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the old board,
>> or is it's current state just a suggestion by Sam?
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard
wrote:
> [Sam Heard] The whitepaper was ratifi
://twitter.com/ppazos
>
> ____________
> Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 21:49:01 +0100
> Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question
> From: Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com
> To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
>
> Hi Diego,
>
Thanks Diego
[Sam Heard] This would be a step forward and would allow for slim and fat
systems to offer the same basic calls.
> > My suggestion is for the this point
> "Begin an open source software project for tools, web-based if
> possible, to author archetypes, templates and terminology refer
Hi Erik
Plans seem to take some promising directions even though that whitepaper
at...
http://www.openehr.org:/openehr/321-OE/version/default/part/AttachmentDa
ta/data/openEHR%20Foundation%20moving%20forward.pdf
...still needs some serious editing in order to better strengthen trust in
op
In my experience. you only need 2 or 3 CKM web services: search (with
different kinds of search) & download. I think those two are really
basic, and are also the ones that every repository must have (and
depending on the application, those are enough). Some of the other web
services (like freemind
Hi Diego,
I understand from Sebastian that you have been exploring the current CKM web
services. Do you think these might form the basis for an open repository
API or do you have any other comments or alternative suggestions?
Ian
On Monday, 5 September 2011, Sam Heard
wrote:
> Thanks Diego
>
>
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 21:49:01 +0100
Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing
My suggestion is for the this point
"Begin an open source software project for tools, web-based if
possible, to author archetypes, templates and terminology reference
sets directly interacting with the Clinical Knowledge Manager and
equivalent repository and review tools"
I agree with the first pa
Hi!
Kudos for moving forward!
Plans seem to take some promising directions even though that whitepaper
at...
http://www.openehr.org:/openehr/321-OE/version/default/part/AttachmentData/data/openEHR%20Foundation%20moving%20forward.pdf
...still needs some serious editing in order to better stren
33 matches
Mail list logo
