From ladymurrugarra at yahoo.es Sat Dec 1 06:16:32 2007 From: ladymurrugarra at yahoo.es (Lady Murrugarra) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] =?iso-8859-1?q?BLOG_=3A_LIBRO_-_Per=FA_y_Am=E9rica?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_Latina_En_La_Era_Digital_=2E=2E?= Message-ID: <714098.41528.qm@web26903.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Red de Iniciativas de Alfabetizaci?n Informacional para el Desarrollo I Encuentro Iberoamericano de Bloggers Posted: 29 Nov 2007 08:17 PM CST La Iniciativa 10Blog convoca al I Encuentro Iberoamericano de Bloggers . Esta actividad busca compartir entre personas de diferentes regiones experiencias entorno a la blog?sfera y su percepci?n de este fen?meno. El encuentro ser? el s?bado 15 de diciembre a las 11 horas GMT -5 (Ej. 1 pm Argentina, 11 am Per?, Espa?a 5 pm) a trav?s de Skypecast (un servicio de Skype ). M?s informaci?n en 10Blog.org Per? y Am?rica Latina En La Era Digital Posted: 29 Nov 2007 05:57 PM CST El Fondo Editorial de la Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia anuncia la pr?xima presentaci?n del libro " Per? y Am?rica Latina en la Era Digital: Transformando la Sociedad" de los editores Chocobar, Gotuzzo, Gozzer, Jim?nez, Murrugarra y Zubko. La presentaci?n ser? el jueves 6 de Diciembre del 2007, 11:00 a.m. en el Auditorio Hernan Torres de la Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, sito en Av. Honorio Delgado 430, San Martin de Porres. V?a Infomediarios Lady Murrugarra Instituto de Medicina Tropical Alexander von Humboldt Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia Telemedicine & e-Le@rning Address: Honorio Delgado 430, Lima 31, Per? Telf: (51-1) 4823903, 4823910, Fax: (51-1) 4823404 Email: ladym@upch.edu.pe, murrugarralady@yahoo.com www.upch.edu.pe/tropicales ***************************************** --------------------------------- Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071130/8d505e94/attachment.htm From drcheah at pc.jaring.my Sat Dec 1 09:10:35 2007 From: drcheah at pc.jaring.my (Molly Cheah) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives Message-ID: <4750B48B.7090401@pc.jaring.my> 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). As for my role in OSHCA and other organisations, I wish to have the liberty to advocate beyond supporting and promoting open source softwares. Article 4.3.3. allows its members to do this. Members are free to exercise their rights at voting time if they think I am unsuitable to continue as its President. It is unfortunate that I am being asked to choose between OSHCA and PCDOM. I guess one's liberty/freedom ends when others' start. However, there is a clause in the OSHCA constitution for removal of members. Below is Article 4 of the OSHCA constitution. Let me know where I had gone wrong as Protem President of OSHCA. Like I said I would like to have my freedom to do other things including promoting PrimaCare, VistA, SAHANA, CHITS, OpenMRS etc based on my personal choice. > > *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 organisations with > compatible goals as a means of achieving the mission. > > > 4.3 - Principles > > *4.3.1 - Promote a globally sustainable approach to building **ICT > solutions for health care* > > Free/Open Source Software development encourages global collaboration. > OSHCA will encourage approaches that seek active participation in > Free/Open Source Software development in health care by users, > developers, and policy makers from all parts of the world. > > > *4.3.2 - Stay lightweight and flexible* > > *In the spirit of Free/Open Source where development is user and needs > driven, facilitation needs to support highly desirable dynamism, > adaptability, and flexibility. This approach seeks to facilitate > natural processes that produce better quality, usability, longevity, > maintainability and cost effectiveness.* > > > *4.3.3 - Be open to diverse opinions and technologies* > > *OSHCA is inclusive of all health care-related Free/Open Source > activities. In a Free/Open Source world, the success of an idea, > standard, or product is measured by its practical use.* > > > *4.3.4 - Ethical Deployment & Maintaining Standards* > > OSHCA's focus is the legal and ethical deployment of reliable and > robust Free/Open Source systems in all areas of health care. This > means taking a leadership role to ensure standards are maintained, and > working with legislative and standards bodies to encourage the > inclusion of Free/Open Source principles in their policies. > From timothywayne.cook at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 12:42:57 2007 From: timothywayne.cook at gmail.com (Tim Cook) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Re: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives In-Reply-To: <4750BF92.80304@optushome.com.au> References: <4750B48B.7090401@pc.jaring.my> <4750BF92.80304@optushome.com.au> Message-ID: <1196484177.4082.27.camel@oship> 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 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 organisations with > >> compatible goals as a means of achieving the mission. > >> > >> > >> 4.3 - Principles > >> > >> *4.3.1 - Promote a globally sustainable approach to building **ICT > >> solutions for health care* > >> Free/Open Source Software development encourages global > collaboration. > >> OSHCA will encourage approaches that seek active participation in > >> Free/Open Source Software development in health care by users, > >> developers, and policy makers from all parts of the world. > >> > >> > >> *4.3.2 - Stay lightweight and flexible* > >> > >> *In the spirit of Free/Open Source where development is user and > needs > >> driven, facilitation needs to support highly desirable dynamism, > >> adaptability, and flexibility. This approach seeks to facilitate > >> natural processes that produce better quality, usability, > longevity, > >> maintainability and cost effectiveness.* > >> > >> > >> *4.3.3 - Be open to diverse opinions and technologies* > >> > >> *OSHCA is inclusive of all health care-related Free/Open Source > >> activities. In a Free/Open Source world, the success of an idea, > >> standard, or product is measured by its practical use.* > >> > >> > >> *4.3.4 - Ethical Deployment & Maintaining Standards* > >> > >> OSHCA's focus is the legal and ethical deployment of reliable and > >> robust Free/Open Source systems in all areas of health care. This > >> means taking a leadership role to ensure standards are maintained, > and > >> working with legislative and standards bodies to encourage the > >> inclusion of Free/Open Source principles in their policies. > > Reading through those aims and objectives, I now very clearly perceive > a > mix of goals, specifically the difference between phrases such as > these: > > a) "...promote and facilitate Free/Open Source Software in Health > Care" > b) "...promotes the Free/Open Source Software Concepts in Health > Care." > c) "OSHCA helps policy makers, commercial enterprises, and users take > advantage of the benefits of Free/Open Source Software." > > and these: > > d) "Free/Open Source Health Care Software" > e) "...Free/Open Source Health Care Software development" > f) "Free/Open Source Software development in health care by users, > developers, and policy makers from all parts of the world." > > I think there is room for, and a need for, an organisation which > concentrates on the strategic goal of promoting the development and > release of open source health care software, rather than on the more > limited tactical goal of promoting the use of open source software in > health care settings. > > Or can both these goals be accommodated within OSHCA? > > Tim Churches > > > > __._,_.___ > Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new > topic > Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | > Calendar > > Yahoo! Groups > Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch > format to Traditional > Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe > Visit Your Group > Yahoo! Finance > It's Now Personal > > Guides, news, > > advice & more. > > > New web site? > Drive traffic now. > > Get your business > > on Yahoo! search. > > > Fitness Edge > on Yahoo! Groups > > Learn how to > > increase endurance. > > > . > > __,_._,___ -- Timothy Cook, MSc Health Informatics Research & Development Services LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook From drcheah at pc.jaring.my Sat Dec 1 13:18:25 2007 From: drcheah at pc.jaring.my (Molly Cheah) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Re: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives In-Reply-To: <1196484177.4082.27.camel@oship> References: <4750B48B.7090401@pc.jaring.my> <4750BF92.80304@optushome.com.au> <1196484177.4082.27.camel@oship> Message-ID: <4750EEA1.4050007@pc.jaring.my> 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 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 organisations with >>>> compatible goals as a means of achieving the mission. >>>> >>>> >>>> 4.3 - Principles >>>> >>>> *4.3.1 - Promote a globally sustainable approach to building **ICT >>>> solutions for health care* >>>> Free/Open Source Software development encourages global >>>> >> collaboration. >> >>>> OSHCA will encourage approaches that seek active participation in >>>> Free/Open Source Software development in health care by users, >>>> developers, and policy makers from all parts of the world. >>>> >>>> >>>> *4.3.2 - Stay lightweight and flexible* >>>> >>>> *In the spirit of Free/Open Source where development is user and >>>> >> needs >> >>>> driven, facilitation needs to support highly desirable dynamism, >>>> adaptability, and flexibility. This approach seeks to facilitate >>>> natural processes that produce better quality, usability, >>>> >> longevity, >> >>>> maintainability and cost effectiveness.* >>>> >>>> >>>> *4.3.3 - Be open to diverse opinions and technologies* >>>> >>>> *OSHCA is inclusive of all health care-related Free/Open Source >>>> activities. In a Free/Open Source world, the success of an idea, >>>> standard, or product is measured by its practical use.* >>>> >>>> >>>> *4.3.4 - Ethical Deployment & Maintaining Standards* >>>> >>>> OSHCA's focus is the legal and ethical deployment of reliable and >>>> robust Free/Open Source systems in all areas of health care. This >>>> means taking a leadership role to ensure standards are maintained, >>>> >> and >> >>>> working with legislative and standards bodies to encourage the >>>> inclusion of Free/Open Source principles in their policies. >>>> >> Reading through those aims and objectives, I now very clearly perceive >> a >> mix of goals, specifically the difference between phrases such as >> these: >> >> a) "...promote and facilitate Free/Open Source Software in Health >> Care" >> b) "...promotes the Free/Open Source Software Concepts in Health >> Care." >> c) "OSHCA helps policy makers, commercial enterprises, and users take >> advantage of the benefits of Free/Open Source Software." >> >> and these: >> >> d) "Free/Open Source Health Care Software" >> e) "...Free/Open Source Health Care Software development" >> f) "Free/Open Source Software development in health care by users, >> developers, and policy makers from all parts of the world." >> >> I think there is room for, and a need for, an organisation which >> concentrates on the strategic goal of promoting the development and >> release of open source health care software, rather than on the more >> limited tactical goal of promoting the use of open source software in >> health care settings. >> >> Or can both these goals be accommodated within OSHCA? >> >> Tim Churches >> >> >> >> >> From drcheah at pc.jaring.my Sat Dec 1 13:33:46 2007 From: drcheah at pc.jaring.my (Molly Cheah) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Re: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives In-Reply-To: <4750EEA1.4050007@pc.jaring.my> References: <4750B48B.7090401@pc.jaring.my> <4750BF92.80304@optushome.com.au> <1196484177.4082.27.camel@oship> <4750EEA1.4050007@pc.jaring.my> Message-ID: <4750F23A.30305@pc.jaring.my> And Tim, please do me a favour by emailing the Hon Secretary of PCDOM at pcdom@ocdom.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. Molly 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 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 organisations with >>>>> compatible goals as a means of achieving the mission. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 4.3 - Principles >>>>> >>>>> *4.3.1 - Promote a globally sustainable approach to building **ICT >>>>> solutions for health care* >>>>> Free/Open Source Software development encourages global >>>>> >>> collaboration. >>> >>>>> OSHCA will encourage approaches that seek active participation in >>>>> Free/Open Source Software development in health care by users, >>>>> developers, and policy makers from all parts of the world. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *4.3.2 - Stay lightweight and flexible* >>>>> >>>>> *In the spirit of Free/Open Source where development is user and >>>>> >>> needs >>> >>>>> driven, facilitation needs to support highly desirable dynamism, >>>>> adaptability, and flexibility. This approach seeks to facilitate >>>>> natural processes that produce better quality, usability, >>>>> >>> longevity, >>> >>>>> maintainability and cost effectiveness.* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *4.3.3 - Be open to diverse opinions and technologies* >>>>> >>>>> *OSHCA is inclusive of all health care-related Free/Open Source >>>>> activities. In a Free/Open Source world, the success of an idea, >>>>> standard, or product is measured by its practical use.* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *4.3.4 - Ethical Deployment & Maintaining Standards* >>>>> >>>>> OSHCA's focus is the legal and ethical deployment of reliable and >>>>> robust Free/Open Source systems in all areas of health care. This >>>>> means taking a leadership role to ensure standards are maintained, >>>>> >>> and >>> >>>>> working with legislative and standards bodies to encourage the >>>>> inclusion of Free/Open Source principles in their policies. >>>>> >>> Reading through those aims and objectives, I now very clearly perceive >>> a >>> mix of goals, specifically the difference between phrases such as >>> these: >>> >>> a) "...promote and facilitate Free/Open Source Software in Health >>> Care" >>> b) "...promotes the Free/Open Source Software Concepts in Health >>> Care." >>> c) "OSHCA helps policy makers, commercial enterprises, and users take >>> advantage of the benefits of Free/Open Source Software." >>> >>> and these: >>> >>> d) "Free/Open Source Health Care Software" >>> e) "...Free/Open Source Health Care Software development" >>> f) "Free/Open Source Software development in health care by users, >>> developers, and policy makers from all parts of the world." >>> >>> I think there is room for, and a need for, an organisation which >>> concentrates on the strategic goal of promoting the development and >>> release of open source health care software, rather than on the more >>> limited tactical goal of promoting the use of open source software in >>> health care settings. >>> >>> Or can both these goals be accommodated within OSHCA? >>> >>> Tim Churches >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > oshca_members mailing list > oshca_members@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/oshca_members > > From amidgley2 at defoam.net Sat Dec 1 18:44:02 2007 From: amidgley2 at defoam.net (Adrian Midgley) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] quote for today Message-ID: <47513AF2.9010408@defoam.net> /?Work as if you lived in the early days of a better nation.?/?Alasdair Gray. From amidgley2 at defoam.net Sat Dec 1 19:59:46 2007 From: amidgley2 at defoam.net (Adrian Midgley) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Re: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives In-Reply-To: <4750EEA1.4050007@pc.jaring.my> References: <4750B48B.7090401@pc.jaring.my> <4750BF92.80304@optushome.com.au> <1196484177.4082.27.camel@oship> <4750EEA1.4050007@pc.jaring.my> Message-ID: <47514CB2.3030905@defoam.net> 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 ) > 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 From tim.churches at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 20:01:56 2007 From: tim.churches at gmail.com (Tim C) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] quote for today In-Reply-To: <47513AF2.9010408@defoam.net> References: <47513AF2.9010408@defoam.net> Message-ID: <7bb0495c0712010401k332e0685p7ad8e32175f15b6a@mail.gmail.com> On 01/12/2007, Adrian Midgley wrote: > /"Work as if you lived in the early days of a better nation."/?Alasdair > Gray. Very appropriate to the mood here in Oz, where after 11 long years, we've just replaced an increasingly reactionary, ageing government with a much more forwards-looking, younger and somewhat more progressive one. Yes, it does feel like the early days of a better nation. Back to work... Tim C From wwilson at umich.edu Sat Dec 1 21:54:56 2007 From: wwilson at umich.edu (Wayne Wilson) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] OSHCA Flame war Message-ID: <20071201085456.BTW94897@thymus.msis.med.umich.edu> This is my last post on the current flame war about Molly being an OSHCA representitive and also a representitive of PCDOM and it's PrimaCare application. First, I feel all too sorry for the recently recruited members of OSHCA who must live and work in a complicated world of conflicting goals and directions, all the while attempting to keep their heads above the water and making progress. You were looking for help and support and what you have discovered is that you have a tough road ahead. OSHCA, I suspect, is fatally doomed. On the one hand we have the 'purists' who want OSHCA to be the health care equivalent of the Open Source initiative. They want to take the moral high ground. They feel so strongly about this that they will stop at nothing and engage in whatever tactics they feel necessary to ensure the purity of their vision. So be it, all of us should pay attention, but when the action becomes as intensely focused as it is here with three people 'attacking' a fourth and when all of those people have a personal history that has often not been smooth, it's clear to me that something more is happening. I think it's clear to most of you too. On the other hand are those best described as pragmatists, those people who understand that the world they live in is messy and they need help steering towards a saner outcome in this contentious world of open source. The purist crowd has now realized and suggested themselves that there are two goals and wonder if OSHCA can do both. Why wonder? It's clear you don't want OSHCA to do both. This is clearly irreconciable differences. Don't let anyone fool you, open source is a concept and in it's short life has invoked some of the most vicious in-fighting I have ever seen. Try following the life and times of Richard Stallman to see what I mean. To all of you who still wish to persist with OSHCA and wish for friendly and collegial advice, I hope you persist. I don't blame any of you if you wish to recede into the background and forsake this organization. The intense personal attacks and endlessly erudite sounding and often erudite in themselves postings mixed with personal invective are a risk you run. To some degree, it's the price one must pay to lay claim to 'open source'. It won't get better in any other forum either because the issue's surrounding open source are near life and death for many of us. From timothywayne.cook at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 23:09:46 2007 From: timothywayne.cook at gmail.com (Tim Cook) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] OSHCA Flame war In-Reply-To: <20071201085456.BTW94897@thymus.msis.med.umich.edu> References: <20071201085456.BTW94897@thymus.msis.med.umich.edu> Message-ID: <1196521786.17350.49.camel@oship> Wayne, Considering the fact that you think three of us ganged up on poor Molly. You might Google the OSSIG mailing list in Malaysia (OSSIG Primacare). It is clear that she has a serious disdain for the accepted norms of open source AND the community in her country and is simply using it as a marketing tool. She chastises them for not helping her and treating her like an outsider yet she doesn't open up and share either. She has BLATANTLY lied about the GPL issue (she told me they were using the GPL and now she has a yet unpublished other license that is similar to another Mozilla type license???) and short of having a voice recording of our conversations I have no proof. So that is her word against mine. You can choose. If we do not police our ranks who will? I do not apologize for my condemnation of her and her approach in this area. In my personal opinion she has done a great job in organizing OSHCA as a formal entity. However, I believe that she is dishonest in her use of OSHCA and the open source approach. Sincerely, Tim On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 08:54 -0500, Wayne Wilson wrote: > This is my last post on the current flame war about Molly being an OSHCA representitive and also a representitive of PCDOM and it's PrimaCare application. > > First, I feel all too sorry for the recently recruited members of OSHCA who must live and work in a complicated world of conflicting goals and directions, all the while attempting to keep their heads above the water and making progress. You were looking for help and support and what you have discovered is that you have a tough road ahead. > > OSHCA, I suspect, is fatally doomed. On the one hand we have the 'purists' who want OSHCA to be the health care equivalent of the Open Source initiative. They want to take the moral high ground. They feel so strongly about this that they will stop at nothing and engage in whatever tactics they feel necessary to ensure the purity of their vision. So be it, all of us should pay attention, but when the action becomes as intensely focused as it is here with three people 'attacking' a fourth and when all of those people have a personal history that has often not been smooth, it's clear to me that something more is happening. I think it's clear to most of you too. > > On the other hand are those best described as pragmatists, those people who understand that the world they live in is messy and they need help steering towards a saner outcome in this contentious world of open source. The purist crowd has now realized and suggested themselves that there are two goals and wonder if OSHCA can do both. Why wonder? It's clear you don't want OSHCA to do both. > > This is clearly irreconciable differences. > > Don't let anyone fool you, open source is a concept and in it's short life has invoked some of the most vicious in-fighting I have ever seen. Try following the life and times of Richard Stallman to see what I mean. > > To all of you who still wish to persist with OSHCA and wish for friendly and collegial advice, I hope you persist. I don't blame any of you if you wish to recede into the background and forsake this organization. The intense personal attacks and endlessly erudite sounding and often erudite in themselves postings mixed with personal invective are a risk you run. To some degree, it's the price one must pay to lay claim to 'open source'. It won't get better in any other forum either because the issue's surrounding open source are near life and death for many of us. > > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health -- Timothy Cook, MSc Health Informatics Research & Development Services LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook From tim.churches at gmail.com Sun Dec 2 06:53:46 2007 From: tim.churches at gmail.com (Tim C) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] OSHCA Flame war In-Reply-To: <20071201085456.BTW94897@thymus.msis.med.umich.edu> References: <20071201085456.BTW94897@thymus.msis.med.umich.edu> Message-ID: <7bb0495c0712011453i3835b165t89f1af9876ce2152@mail.gmail.com> On 02/12/2007, Wayne Wilson wrote: > This is my last post on the current flame war about Molly being an OSHCA representitive > and also a representitive of PCDOM and it's PrimaCare application. I regret that it has descended into a flame war. I have endeavoured to ensure that all my messages to these lists have been polite and carefully argued - I hope that has been the case. > First, I feel all too sorry for the recently recruited members of OSHCA who must live and > work in a complicated world of conflicting goals and directions, all the while attempting to > keep their heads above the water and making progress. You were looking for help and > support and what you have discovered is that you have a tough road ahead. Yes, I feel sorry for them too, although I must point out that if all you want is an easy life, then don't become an advocate for open source software. The inescapable but often overlooked fact is that the concepts behind open source software represent serious philosophical challenges to the dominant models of production and distribution in our modern "knowledge economies". Thus, supporting open source software is, in itself, a political act, and almost by definition, political processes imply dispute, argumentation and intellectual struggles - political movements never proceed through a happy, cheerful consensus. However, these disputes and struggles need not be self-destructive, and I hope the current one isn't - but they can be uncomfortable. > OSHCA, I suspect, is fatally doomed. I don't think the prognosis is that bad. I think we are dealing with a bit of a boil, a carbuncle, that must be lanced. If we do that, the patient will recover fully. If we don't, then there is a small chance that septicaemia will develop, and then the prognosis will be rather more serious. I sincerely hope that will not happen. Please note that by "carbuncle", I an *not* referring to Dr Cheah herself, merely to her persistently stated position that PCDOM PrimaCare is open source software - a stated position which I feel is extremely problematic because she is also the protemp President of OSHCA. I have enormous respect for Dr Cheah herself, particularly for her boundless energy and her exceptionally admirable efforts in the very difficult area of tobacco control in Malaysia. I even have a lot of regard for the business model she established which allowed the PCDOM organisation (which she was instrumental in setting up) to fund and develop its PrimaCare software - and I have no philosophical objections to that business model. What I do object to is, as we have witnessed on these lists in the last day or so, the ongoing positioning of the PrimaCare software as an open source application, when it is clearly not. This is very problematic because Dr Cheah is so closely associated with OSHCA. > On the one hand we have the 'purists' who want OSHCA to be the health care equivalent > of the Open Source initiative. I accept that a separate organisation of body is probably needed to take on the role of promoting the development and release of open source health care applications, and OSHCA should continue to pursue the tactical goal of promoting the use of open source software infrastructure in health care settings. > They want to take the moral high ground. They feel so > strongly about this that they will stop at nothing and engage in whatever tactics they feel > necessary to ensure the purity of their vision. So be it, all of us should pay attention, but > when the action becomes as intensely focused as it is here with three people 'attacking' a > fourth and when all of those people have a personal history that has often not been > smooth, it's clear to me that something more is happening. I think it's clear to most of > you too. I can't speak for others, but as far as I am concerned, this is not about attacking Molly Cheah - it is about defending a principle, an important one: the concept of "open source health care software". My concern over this issue was triggered by this article on LinuxMedNews in 2004: http://linuxmednews.com/1094644166/index_html - be sure to read the quoted reply from Molly, underneath the main article (which was posted by Joseph dal Molin) regarding the availability of PrimaCare back then. As Molly has recently confirmed, the source code for PrimaCare is still not freely available under an open source license. As far as I am concerned, that is perfectly OK: there is no compulsion for the PCDOM organisation to release PrimaCare source code under an open source license, and I completely accept that there may be contractual and legal impediments to doing so in Malaysia. What I do object to, and strongly, is Molly's refusal to acknowledge that as a result of these impediments, PCDOM PrimaCare is NOT currently an open source application, nor has it ever been one. This refusal is, in my opinion, very problematic simply because Molly is the protemp President of, and very closely identified with, OSHCA. >From my perspective, all that is required to resolve this situation is for the PCDOM organisation, of which Molly is the President, to make a public statement along the lines of: * PCDOM PrimaCare is a healthcare software application which is built with and runs on freely available open source software infrastucture (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP etc). * However, for legal and contractual reasons, the PCDOM PrimaCare software itself is not freely available under an open source license. The source code for the Primacare software is available to Malaysian health care professionals who contract with the PCDOM organisation for supply of services related tot he PrimaCare software, but that source code may not be distributed to third parties. * The PCDOM organisation would like to make the source code for its PrimaCare application freely available to others, under an open source license, but has not yet completed the negotiations and other arrangements necessary to be able to do that. Even if PCDOM as an organisation can't bring itself to make such a statement, I believe it is important that Molly Cheah does. Failure to do so will, in my view, seriously undermine the value of the concept of "open source healthcare software" - a concept which OSHCA is supposed to be promoting. It is up to PCDOM, and to Molly. Tim Churches From drcheah at pc.jaring.my Sun Dec 2 06:55:47 2007 From: drcheah at pc.jaring.my (Molly Cheah) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] [Fwd: Re: [oshca_members] Why is open source fidelity is important to health care and what should OSHCA do?] Message-ID: <4751E673.2000605@pc.jaring.my> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Molly Cheah Subject: Re: [oshca_members] Why is open source fidelity is important to health care and what should OSHCA do? Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 06:54:16 +0800 Size: 11953 Url: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071202/8b25ad94/oshca_membersWhyisopensourcefidelityisimportanttohealthcareandwhatshouldOSHCAdo.eml From alvin.marcelo at gmail.com Sun Dec 2 07:54:06 2007 From: alvin.marcelo at gmail.com (Alvin Marcelo) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] FOSS for Health Conference ASEAN in 2008 Message-ID: <2c9aeb960712011554u521e29dfhc143fc4a560ac5fa@mail.gmail.com> And this perhaps is a good segue for this announcement: UNDP-IOSN ASEAN+3 will be organizing a FOSS conference for health for 2008 (the same way UNDP-IOSN brought in 20 extra participants to OSHCA in KL last May). We will definitely invite OSHCA [Asia? ASEAN?] to take part in this event. This would be a good venue to discuss region-specific concerns about the organization -- and ways forward. alvin -- Alvin B. Marcelo, MD (www.alvinmarcelo.com) Director, National Telehealth Center | Manager, International Open Source Network (www.iosn.net) University of the Philippines Manila | UNDP Centre of Excellence for Free/Open Source Software in the ASEAN+3 Telefax: 632-525-6501 | List: http://lists.apdip.net/mailman/listinfo/iosn-general -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071201/1bd6a162/attachment.htm From amidgley2 at defoam.net Sun Dec 2 08:29:41 2007 From: amidgley2 at defoam.net (Adrian Midgley) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] OSHCA Flame war In-Reply-To: <20071201085456.BTW94897@thymus.msis.med.umich.edu> References: <20071201085456.BTW94897@thymus.msis.med.umich.edu> Message-ID: <4751FC75.3040708@defoam.net> Wayne Wilson wrote: > OSHCA, I suspect, is fatally doomed. On the one hand we have the 'purists' who want OSHCA to be the health care equivalent of the Open Source initiative. They want to take the moral high ground. The FSF occupy the moral high ground. OSI is a well-reported pragmatic approach to business. From dalmolin at e-cology.ca Sun Dec 2 08:51:18 2007 From: dalmolin at e-cology.ca (Joseph Dal Molin) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] [Fwd: Re: [oshca_members] Why is open source fidelity is important to health care and what should OSHCA do?] In-Reply-To: <4751E673.2000605@pc.jaring.my> References: <4751E673.2000605@pc.jaring.my> Message-ID: <47520186.4000407@e-cology.ca> "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 of....far 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 scroll....VistA pre 1998. That's why we put the World in WorldVistA .... WorldCup not WorldSeries :-) Yes there is a need to coordinate in regional cultural contexts....but 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 universal....perhaps 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 > Date: > Sun, 02 Dec 2007 06:54:16 +0800 > To: > OSHCA Members List > > To: > OSHCA Members List > > > 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 join....and 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 >> bring....what 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 invented here" and other competitive antibodies that >> are show stoppers. >> >> Joseph >> >> Tim Churches wrote: >>> Will Ross wrote: >>>> Tim & Joseph, >>>> >>>> I think you have very effectively described one of the dichotomies in >>>> open source software advocacy. The open source development model, as >>>> Joseph has said so well, is the peer reviewed approach to mutual >>>> investigation, discovery and invention. And as you have said so well, >>>> in the health care sector, as in all vertical software business >>>> sectors, >>>> there are abundant opportunities for focused application of the open >>>> source development model to yield transformative community progress >>>> towards improved delivery of services -- e.g., better tools for the >>>> provision of health care, better care for patients, etc. The >>>> presentation I gave at the OSHCA conference earlier this year was along >>>> these same lines, a simple survey of open source tools in one small >>>> area >>>> of health care delivery, an open ended investigation of the state of >>>> the >>>> situation across multiple similar tools rather than advocacy for a >>>> single software tool. I like your question about a separate >>>> organization for this type of investigation. I wonder if a simple >>>> open >>>> source working group under IMIA would suffice? >>> >>> I agree that an IMIA working group which focuses on fostering the >>> development and release of open source health care software (as opposed >>> to just the use of open source software in health care settings) is >>> probably the best way forward. It may be possible that the existing IMIA >>> open source working group can be used for this purpose - if not, then >>> I'll investigate setting up a new one. >>> >>> Tim Churches >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Tim Churches wrote: >>>> >>>>> Joseph Dal Molin wrote: >>>>>> There is a critically important point that I fear is getting lost >>>>>> in the >>>>>> recent "exchange" of email.... and that is how important to achieving >>>>>> the goals of healthcare is implementing a high fidelity open source >>>>>> model? In healthcare software has become as life-critical a tool as a >>>>>> drug or procedure....you can do a great deal of good and you can hurt >>>>>> people or worse. Because of this I often compare open source >>>>>> process to >>>>>> evidence based medicine >>>>>> to explain the model to health care professionals.... open, peer >>>>>> reviewed, collaborative, outcomes focused. The more you bend the >>>>>> model >>>>>> to intensify satisfaction of non-health related objectives or >>>>>> constraints or goals, such as financial or other non-health goals, >>>>>> the >>>>>> more you >>>>>> compromise and the less effective the software and its development >>>>>> processes become in supporting the improvement of people's health. >>>>>> >>>>>> One has to assume that adopters know nothing about open source to >>>>>> really >>>>>> level the playing field. OSHCA needs to develop an objective >>>>>> classification/rating >>>>>> system for "open source" health software solutions, which would >>>>>> include >>>>>> a definition of the business and community ecosystem model for that >>>>>> solution, so that adopters clearly understand what they are >>>>>> committing >>>>>> to and what the implications are. This kind of transparency will >>>>>> enable >>>>>> the community to more effectively decide where to invest its >>>>>> resources >>>>>> and cut through the marketing hype that is increasingly occurring now >>>>>> that open source is considered a legitimate option in many places. >>>>> These are excellent observations with which I heartily concur. Indeed, >>>>> some may recall that I proposed such a classification scheme for >>>>> papers >>>>> to be presented at the 2007 OSHCA conference, and for projects and >>>>> applications listed on the OSHCA web site. That proposal received a >>>>> positive reception from some, and a frosty reception from others. >>>>> >>>>> However, I really wonder whether two organisations are needed: OSHCA, >>>>> with the wider goal of promoting the use of open source software of >>>>> any >>>>> type, including open source "infrastructure" components such as Linux, >>>>> Apache, MySQL, PHP, OpenOffice and so on, in health care settings, >>>>> and a >>>>> separate organisation with the more specific goal of promoting, >>>>> encouraging and fostering the development of open source health care >>>>> applications and tools. A working title for the latter organisation >>>>> might be something like the 'Healthcare Open Source Software >>>>> Developers >>>>> Network'. >>>>> >>>>> Although these goals are complementary, there are also inevitable >>>>> tensions, and I no longer feel that they can both be adequately >>>>> pursued >>>>> by one organisation. Of course, there is no reason why individuals and >>>>> organsations can't be members of both OSHCA and the proposed >>>>> 'Healthcare >>>>> Open Source Software Developers Network' organisation. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> Tim Churches >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> oshca_members mailing list >>>>> oshca_members@oshca.org >>>>> http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/oshca_members >>>>> >>>> [wr] >>>> >>>> - - - - - - - - >>>> >>>> will ross >>>> chief information officer >>>> mendocino informatics >>>> 216 west perkins street, suite 206 >>>> ukiah, california 95482 usa >>>> 707.462.6369 [office] >>>> 707.462.5015 [fax] >>>> www.minformatics.com >>>> >>>> - - - - - - - - >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> oshca_members mailing list >>>> oshca_members@oshca.org >>>> http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/oshca_members >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> oshca_members mailing list >>> oshca_members@oshca.org >>> http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/oshca_members >>> . >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> oshca_members mailing list >> oshca_members@oshca.org >> http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/oshca_members >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > oshca_members mailing list > oshca_members@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/oshca_members > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health From caultonpos at gmail.com Sun Dec 2 10:25:35 2007 From: caultonpos at gmail.com (Greg Caulton) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Re: [os-wg] [LinuxMedNews] Re: PatientOS v0.21 Scheduling II released In-Reply-To: <200712011327450272.08031188@mail.peoplepc.com> References: <200711291328.lATDSJV31793@ensim3.interlix.com> <1196361390.4574.306.camel@oship> <200712011327450272.08031188@mail.peoplepc.com> Message-ID: Hi Larry, You have words of wisdom! Let me clarify my involvement and position in all of this. > > probably a seasoned developer even if he is new to open source healthcare applications > There are many more seasoned than I of course. This is my second open source app, having learnt many lessons from the first. I am not new to commercial healthcare information systems having worked on Cerner for most of my 13 years. My current day job is managing development of internal clinical applications for my hospital. I am new to open source healthcare applications and that is why I (naively) had no clue that my posting progress on my development of PatientOS, an open source (GPL v3) healthcare information system on forums, mailing lists and LinuxMedNews would generate adverse reactions from some people. I guess I can compare it to joining a new organization where you don't know the culture but after a year or so (I have only been online since Oct) you can blend in or at least not stick out as not playing by the rules. As another wise person said on foss_health in this context, "I don't blame any of you if you wish to recede into the background...", I feel that way right now - stick my head in the sand ignore the storm around me. But against my own advice I am responding again (the follies of youth), though if I get flamed again I will retreat. > > If we (OS-WG) could create an environment or mechanism for *every* existing open source EHR developer to collaborate and create one data model that each was comfortable using, > That is a fantastic idea. I have always believed that with any complex information system the battle is won or lost with the data model. Too complex and your code will suffer, too simple and you cannot be flexible enough. > > we could have a working engine (like Apache) upon which we could vary user interfaces, decision support and so forth > Absolutely - there is no reason one cannot have a web client and a rich client. Decision support can be built using open source rules engines. > > Perhaps out of individualism or simply because it can be hard to find useful components, we reinvent what has already been done. If each developer would start from a standard > Ahh, well you see the reason (right or wrong) I reinvented was that I looked at the goals of a) minimize the amount of code written b) minimize the complexity of the code written c) maximize automation of routine code written I did search high and low for components to do this, and my search was very successful for many, many (http://www.patientos.org/patientos/acknowledgements.html) components and libraries but just not healthcare specific code *for the core system*. I did find and do use Mirth as an HL7 Engine, I do plan to integrate Indivo as a patient portal, and I will use later other specialty systems e.g. PACS To achieve a and b) I found Hibernate awesome to minimize writing complex SQL and yet still manage hierarchal database relationships. JBoss provides middleware, queuing, synchronization, messaging, a rules engine and much more. Also for a) I do not code a single user interface - it is all driven from the database and so no mistakes and forces a strong MVC architecture. To achieve c) I generate all of the data objects, object relationships and reference codes as source code - effectively ruling out DTO mapping errors and errors referencing all of the reference content (settings, units of measure, types of status etc). So all of this coupled with code focused on < 12 lines/method, facades, interfaces, soa, factories, mediator and builder patterns has made me extremely productive and I can build new functionality in a fraction of the time of other projects I have worked on (I guest that sounds arrogant - not meant to be). With any architecture that attempts to achieve flexibility, maintainability, scalability, reusability there is a price to pay - mine is performance - rather than raw SQL serving up web pages, I have a lot of object generation. I offset this by smart caching but it is yet to be proven that we can scale PatientOS to thousands of users. Next year I will test this - once I have functionality enough to do a valid test. So while I completely agree with not reinventing the wheel - I think I have at least an oval. I have not seen an example of a project which has done all I describe. *And I not saying it will succeed but I would like to try* > > Apache-like model which encouraged developers to add new modules to the existing core > So while you probably cannot gather it from my website, this is exactly what I hope to achieve. While I will admit to being an optimist, I am not so foolish as to believe that I could build an entire system, however productive one can be. My goal is purely to build enough to attract other developers and open source companies to take up PatientOS. Today I have a 2 developers and one (albeit) small company that are doing just that as we work towards our first install, replacing McKessons product (http://www.patientos.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=40). Small beginnings I know, but I have to start *somewhere* and again - it has only been a few months! As we build functionality we are purposefully building plugins so that you not only use the system tools to design your own applications, but also write your own Java to radically alter the workflow of the application, whether on the front end or in the backend processing. As an example if you look at this user interface: http://www.patientos.org/forum_temp/scheduling.png The goal is you can completely alter the display. For this version I am working on (which is hopefully going live in a limited scheduling capacity on the 10th) you can code against this interface and replace the default code (i.e. implement ICalendarViewPlug by adding and referencing a class that does something like this: http://patientos.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/*checkout*/patientos/trunk/src/com/patientis/pluginclient/scheduling/CalendarViewStandard.java) One of the biggest challenges is organizing the software development lifecycle, to achieve a degree of design control and quality without bogging down the entire process. When you add that I have integrated with a single source of reference codes and a database driven environment there are several challenges. *Until* I get the developer environment (on Linux) such that a developer can synch a subversion environment - and immediately be productive, I know it will be challenging to attract developers. Once I have the process nailed I plan to release PatientOS is a number of languages and hopefully broading the interest to developers world wide. A large part of the system (form, menus, toolbars, dialogs etc) is not built with raw code - rather built with GUI interfaces so I hope to attract a broader audience to help build the system and while I do have a few interested clinicians from our hospital - it is the chicken before the egg in that I need to build more functionality for them or anyone else to be productive. Regardless of the challenges, anything is possible and while a non-technical open source HIS seems out of reach, if Linux and Vista can do it, so can we. Certainly I am not giving up for at least 30 years :-) Having said all this I am still all for giving and helping, and less interested in controlling the project than making it successful, In fact it was upon Tim's recommendation that I joined OpenEHR in an effort to make PatientOS compatible with other systems. *All I ask* is to be able to post on LinuxMedNews and elsewhere my progress - I am not saying I have succeeded (yet lol). Oh and don't force me to write PHP (that's a joke!) Greg http://www.patientos.org On 12/1/07, Larry Ozeran wrote: > Hi all, > > As an attempt to remind everyone we are all on the same side, I will enter the fray fully aware I may be bruised in the process. > > First, here is my take on the interaction. I know Tim. He is a longstanding developer and supporter of open source in healthcare. He speaks from personal experience. I do not know Greg, but I hear his passion and excitement. I am not a Java programmer, but I can follow his code examples easily, so I am going to conclude that he is probably a seasoned developer even if he is new to open source healthcare applications. If you can objectively strip out any emotional connotations associated with certain phrases, it seems to me that Tim is trying to help Greg benefit from his experience and guide Greg to the most beneficial uses of his time. How do we harness the enthusiasm that Greg brings to his project and move open source EHRs forward as a group? I think that was what Tim was trying to do in a more private conversation. > > Second, I think that Tim and Greg and I and probably most of you on this list would like to see greater adoption of open source projects in the healthcare industry. In my mind, the big question is how do we do that? Partly, we have to stop fighting (or appear to be fighting) and collaborate more effectively. All of us are smart and creative. It is natural for us to think our idea is the best and just hasn't been done before. Unfortunately, it is too common that a project will start with great enthusiasm and as progress slows, the project succumbs to frustration. > > This incident gives us an opportunity to discuss that bigger question. Here are my suggestions: > If we (OS-WG) could create an environment or mechanism for *every* existing open source EHR developer to collaborate and create one data model that each was comfortable using, we could have a working engine (like Apache) upon which we could vary user interfaces, decision support and so forth. The beauty of open source is that if you don't like what is available you can make it your own. The danger of open source is that that freedom does not require us to modularize and build on what has been done already. Perhaps out of individualism or simply because it can be hard to find useful components, we reinvent what has already been done. If each developer would start from a standard and move forward rather than create their own from scratch, we would be much father ahead. Even better if we actually had an Apache-like model which encouraged developers to add new modules to the existing core. > > I don't think it is possible to create that data model today, but I would be happy to be proved wrong. Our next best option is to have a general agreement favoring modularity. If each developer would modularize their data model, user interface and other components then each could be reused by the next Greg if it met Greg's needs. It would be possible to use Greg's malleable user interface on OEMRs data model using Tim's order entry and Fred's billing. It would be similar to using a specific Linux core, with an Ubuntu distribution and KDE presentation layer. If our OS-WG were able to catalog existing modules, perhaps it would be easier to find modules that have already been made rather than spend large amounts of time developing anew. If each open source project indicated in its instances (its web site and on sourceforge) that our catalog existed, it might help to direct potential developers to start with what exists, or possibly encourage them to bring their ideas and talents to an existing project. If we had difficulty encouraging AMIA to support an online instance of this catalog, we are fortunate to have Ignacio as our chair. Not putting words in his mouth, but if it were the will of the group, I suspect he would be willing to host this catalog on LinuxMedNews. > > I've got my asbestos on. Flame away! :-) > > Regards, > > Larry > > On 11/29/2007 at 2:43 PM Greg Caulton sent: > > >Tim, > > > >If you were defending my project then perhaps I misjudged your email, > >perhaps I am getting a little defensive (nothing personal) but when > >you imply that my developing anything other than a web interface is > >pointless, that I am repeating the mistakes of the past - I > >*completely* disagree. > > > >I will attach what I believe is the merits of PatientOS utliization of > >a rich client, software design patterns, HCI concepts, the best open > >source software components - Java, JBoss, Hibernate, Swing, JGoodies, > >Mirth etc. > > > >thanks > > > >Greg > > > >http://www.patientos.org > > > > From Karsten.Hilbert at gmx.net Sun Dec 2 18:16:09 2007 From: Karsten.Hilbert at gmx.net (Karsten Hilbert) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives In-Reply-To: <4750B48B.7090401@pc.jaring.my> References: <4750B48B.7090401@pc.jaring.my> Message-ID: <20071202101608.GB4391@merkur.hilbert.loc> On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 09:10:35AM +0800, Molly Cheah wrote: > 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. Ah, OK, thanks for that clarification. I was wondering whether there was a way I could look at the code and the database schema which is something I do with every GP level EMR I can get my hands on in order to learn more on how things are done in the field. That's pretty much all I care about :-) > 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. Just for my own understanding - so that I don't try to allot (spelling?) time to getting hold of PrimaCare source - this does or does not mean a Malaysian GP is allowed to redistribute their copy of PrimaCare to me ? I don't particulary worry either way, just asking. No problem if you think this should be forwarded to someone more appropriate for answering. Thanks, Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 From drcheah at pc.jaring.my Mon Dec 3 07:50:39 2007 From: drcheah at pc.jaring.my (Molly Cheah) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] GKP - Beyond Tunis Message-ID: <475344CF.5060708@pc.jaring.my> For those who are interested to read the happenings before and beyond Tunis, here's the url: http://www.gkpcms.com/beyondtunis/index.cfm/pageid/38 The */Beyond Tunis/* publication series is a unique intellectual adventure launched by Global Knowledge Partnership (GKP) to highlight efforts to advance the use and application of Knowledge and ICT for Development after the World Summit for the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis in 2005. I have contributed an article under BT 2.0 Horizon Molly From drcheah at pc.jaring.my Tue Dec 18 08:29:45 2007 From: drcheah at pc.jaring.my (Molly Cheah) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] [Fwd: [openhealth] Open Sourcing of Proteus Tools] Message-ID: <47671479.9070705@pc.jaring.my> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Hemant Shah" Subject: [openhealth] Open Sourcing of Proteus Tools Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:42:48 -0500 Size: 5780 Url: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071218/7b5e8e2e/openhealthOpenSourcingofProteusTools.eml From drcheah at pc.jaring.my Tue Dec 18 08:41:03 2007 From: drcheah at pc.jaring.my (Molly Cheah) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Re: [openhealth] Open Sourcing of Proteus Tools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4767171F.3060101@pc.jaring.my> Here's the abstract of a paper presented at OSHCA2007 in May in KL. Legal issues impacting the use of open source software in health care by GK Ganesan Software relating to healthcare: an introduction to some legal issues This paper examines legal issues relating to the use of open source software in healthcare, and in particular, discusses questions of law that fall within the purview of the law of contract, and the law of tort. Software is ubiquitous in the modern word. Nothing is ever done without it, and it would appear, nothing is ever going to be done without it . Yet, as the historian Edward Gibbon said it, it is easier to deplore the state of than to describe the condition of software users. The sort of software that is used in the medical field has wide scope, both of form, function and range: for instance there are software that deal with mere recordkeeping of patient data and billing procedures. Then there are those that cater for the electronic monitoring of emergency procedure, or drug dispensation in a ?live? situation; and finally there are software systems that seem to play a major role in clinical decision making processes. We are here concerned with the latter as opposed to the former. Medical personnel are trained to make clinical decisions premised observations and the way a patient responds to stimuli, including drugs, circumstances and time. Decisions are made by observation or other diagnostic tools. What software purport to do is to take over this human function, prone to human-error as it is, and to translate it into an accurate system of information processing that is used to make decisions which affect the well-being of human beings. So far, so good, but how far may one take this hypothesis before it becomes unsafe to patients? Software is crafted by programmers and system architects, and not doctors. Are the software or their authors prone to error? If they are, are programmers liable, and if so, in what way? What are the limitations of their liability, and how far or wide is the net cast? This paper aims to answer these questions by the application of general law. Hemant Shah wrote: > Proteus (http://www.proteme.org) is an approach that allows authoring > executable clinical processes and guidelines with decision support > integrated within them. > > I am on the verge of making Proteus related tools available under an open > source license. I need the advice of this community of open source champions > on how to go about it and the choice of open source license. I know this has > been discussed time and again on this list but I am still unclear about > several things. Therefore please indulge my naivet?. > > I think LGPL provides most of what I need however I am still not clear about > the use of derivative products. Specific example: what is there to prevent > me from taking a class e.g, Person of an open source project and extend it > by a class called SpecialPerson, and instead of adding the functionality > that logically belongs in the Person class, enhance the SpecialPerson which > I then keep closed source? By doing this one can easily violate the spirit > and the intent of the license. > > My employer, Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) is supporting me in getting the > Proteus tools open sourced. We have plans to use the open source version for > research and to assist clinicians in patient care. Therefore significant > development will take place after it has been open sourced. I have access to > the HFHS legal department if needed. However, I need to know what help > should I seek from them. Does it make sense to craft your own open source > license instead of utilizing one of the standard ones? > > Any advice will be appreciated. > > Thanks, > > > Hemant > > From nplee at tm.net.my Sat Dec 22 22:24:42 2007 From: nplee at tm.net.my (NP Lee) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Merry Xmas and a happy new year Message-ID: <476D1E2A.7080200@tm.net.my> Have A Happy Holiday And A Prosperous New Year. Best wishes. -- best wishes. /nan phin Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.