Which IP do you mean Gerard?
The two kinds I know are not "owned" by the OpenEHR foundation.
Definitions are context dependant, but that’s not the point… you ignored the true argument about availavility and constraints/freedom to use.
I think Silje’s explanation is crystal clear on this matter – so what exactly your problem is Gerard with openEHR? Can you give a concrete example where other SDOs you mention are better placed wrt to freedom?
Again.
Answer the question ‘Who owns the specifications of openEHR, looking at the quotes I provided?
The answer is:
UCL owns the IP rights and licensing conditions.
Members of, participants in, openEHR gremia, do not.
And that is why I call openEHR specifications proprietary.
According to the definition of ‘open standard’, openEHR is an open Standard
but owned by as single company.
I know for certain that this fact prohibited serious business in some European countries, some years ago.
Because of the licensing and dependency on proprietary specifications, the artifacts produced were not controllable by the user/customer.
This was their reason, after legal consultation, not to use software based on openEHR specifications.
Gerard
So you are saying that you need a license to build an openehr implementation?
That is very strange that several parties I know work without license except an open source license, and that for years. How do you explain that? Do you think the “owner” is sleeping?
Should code24, marand, Pablo, zorggemak, and their customers, etc, in your opinion, worry they might get a claim when the “owner” wakes up.
Do you consider this as a real danger for those companies?
And what kind of claim do you expect?
And what do you suggest should be done to take away those worries?
Maybe license it open source with a notification that no patent claims will be executed, and that until the end of days?
Would this give certainty in your eyes.
Gerard, you write “UCL owns the IP rights and licensing conditions.
Members of, participants in, openEHR gremia, do not.”
Can you explain what you mean, what is the difference in rights between UCL and all those companies which are using it on an open source license?
Which right does UCL have, which others, using the Apache license do not have?
I think this must be the key point of your effort of making us aware. So it will be very nice for all of us, if you explain this.
Thanks in advance
Bert
Gerard,
the 'IP rights' are defined by the licences. You can read them here <http://www.openehr.org/about/intellectual_property>\. The rights to use, copy and adapt are clearly defined, and include no curbs on freedom, and no requirement for payment. The only real requirement is that attribution of the original author(s) remains visible.
This is how all open source IP works. This is why it is called 'open'. You will find for example that the Linux kernel is 'owned' by Linus Torvalds. But the ownership is irrelevant because of the licence under which it is available.
There is no dependency of openEHR IP on proprietary specifications of any kind - that is objectively demonstrable. The only reason I can imagine that openEHR's open licenced IP could have encountered problems in any European country is due to the presence of bureaucrats with an understanding of open source / commons licencing as obtuse as your own. Or perhaps they were coached?
- thomas
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
It is not a numbers game.
Members/users need to own it.
CEN, ISO, HL7, SNOMED, WHO, all have members that own the IP.
These organizations are real Associations.
Gerard
I shared with you my definitions and my argument.
This provided my context.
In principle: definitions are universal in nature and generally applicable in many contexts.
Gerard
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.
I noticed you only read the first three lines of an message, so I send you short messages. In a last attempt to reach you
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.
Why now, if it is a long standing problem, why not five years ago, and why this sudden energy to harm the reputation of OpenEHR?
If I don't like the license of a product, I don't use it. I am not going to send 20 emails to the usergroup to complain.
It is already said, as argument against your position, numbers do not count, rights count.
Users do not need to "own" Linux, the need the right to use it.
That is how Open Source work.
Users do not need to "own".
How much rights have users of OpenEHR?
They have the right to download and distribute the specifications for free.
They have the right to implement it for free
The license says, those rights are perpetual.
Which user owns ISO13606?
They have to pay to read the standard, and quite much, 200 Euro per part.
They may not distribute it freely.
There is copyright on it.
So, this was my last message about this.
I think some one else should defend the position of OpenEHR from now.
Thanks Bert and all,
To me it was quite enlightening and pleasurable to see so many people chip in and defend openEHR in the last 24 hours or so.
It couldn't have been clearer to me what you, Silje, Stef, Ian, Thomas, Koray, Pablo and Seref have said.
Sebastian
There is no dependency of openEHR IP on proprietary specifications of any kind - that is objectively demonstrable. The only reason I can imagine that openEHR’s open licenced IP could have encountered problems in any European country is due to the presence of bureaucrats with an obtuse understanding of open source / commons licencing
+1, we all know that technologically the interoperability in the Health environment is feasible, what about people in Europe making decisions about it? Thanks to openEHR community and ISO13606 group, CIMI, HL7 FHIR archetypes… we are getting close to convince them… But we should not act like the bureaucrats.
Regards.
Carlos.
Again: you are explicitly ignoring availability and freedom to use arguments, the main point here…
This is my last message on this discussion, I’ll continue doing something more productive 
I agree with you.
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