Coming from experience in both the open source world and the medical diagnostics industry, it seems like they should be able to source these type of experts from their consumers/customers, or at least orgs who have expressed interest in adopting their hardware. They may not be experts in licensing but at least they will be experts in things like (in the United States) FDA computerized systems validation requirements, emergency use authorizations, etc. If not, there are probably people in the communities of existing open source health projects that could provide insights.
I'm presuming they have such folks already because it's so critical in crisis response work, to focus on real (versus perceived) needs. It's a good thing this projects contributors are realizing they needn't be the domain experts in everything; and it's a great way to engage their users in the community. (As an aside generally -- not necessarily this project which I hadn't read about until now -- now more than ever open source activists need to be keenly aware of "hammers in search of nails" which inevitably end up as projects that have not been designed with consideration of real user needs, as they tend to just end up never used, or worse, being oversold and harming patient care through oversights. Much work has ended up in the open source morgue because it was good intentions expressed through technocratic solutionism. During Ebola we had a ton of this. Meanwhile the projects that are already serving real implementation struggle to keep and maintain contributors...) Michael Downey United Nations Foundation -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
