Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [openhealth] Re: Open Source?

Expand Messages
  • Adrian Midgley
    ... It does. The sociological aspects give us more trouble than the technical nowadays, I think, if we include the travails of the NHS and NPfIT and their
    Message 1 of 116 , Jul 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Tim Churches wrote:


      >
      >
      > ... perhaps it deserves to be written up
      > as a brief formal paper? There other sociological aspects of openEHR
      > archetype licensing and control which I have not discussed here, too.
      >










      It does.

      The sociological aspects give us more trouble than the technical
      nowadays, I think, if we include the travails of the NHS and NPfIT and
      their putative suppliers in "sociological".

      There is http://www.josmc.org/ JOSMC which could do with material and is
      a reasonable place for that, and there are always the BMJ and so on if
      it is short and tight.


      --
      Adrian Midgley
    • Tim Churches
      ... No, free, open-source licensing is something that only the copyright holder themselves can do. After they have attended to that, *then* others can
      Message 116 of 116 , Jul 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Adrian Midgley wrote:
        > Tim Churches wrote:
        >> Thomas Beale wrote:
        >>> Tim,
        >>>
        >>> all archetypes published on openEHR are for free use, forever.
        >>> Otherwise they don't go there. Free archetypes is our credo.
        >>
        >> Yeah, but where, in writing, does it say that? Any lawyer will
        >> tell you that credos don't count in court when push comes to
        >> shove. Properly written and executed license agreements do.
        >
        > In the FLOSS model, this may be a matter for other workers to
        > volunteer their labour to get written and executed.

        No, free, open-source licensing is something that only the copyright
        holder themselves can do. After they have attended to that, *then*
        others can contribute to other aspects. But it has to happen in that order.

        Adrian Midgley wrote:
        > Tim Churches wrote:
        >>
        >> ... perhaps it deserves to be written up
        >> as a brief formal paper? There other sociological aspects of openEHR
        >> archetype licensing and control which I have not discussed here, too.
        >
        > It does.
        >
        > The sociological aspects give us more trouble than the technical
        > nowadays, I think, if we include the travails of the NHS and NPfIT and
        > their putative suppliers in "sociological".
        >
        > There is http://www.josmc.org/ JOSMC which could do with material and is
        > a reasonable place for that, and there are always the BMJ and so on if
        > it is short and tight.

        I was a fan of BioMed Central, but recently we have found their
        peer-review model to be broken, with papers sent to reviewers who
        because they are identified are overly critical, and hence perfectly
        good papers seem to get held up for endless rounds of revision and
        re-review.

        PLoS ONE would be a good choice, and I probably find funds for the
        publication fee if someone suitable agrees to be an active co-author.

        Tim C
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.