Just had this published in All Things Open!
It covers the whole “why open source is essential for healthcare” argument in a 7 minute read, and includes a new section which wasn’t in previous similar articles about the “copyright timebomb” we are leaving for future generations if we don’t fix healthcare software STAT.
Blog: Open Source Is The Only Way For Medicine - blog - Baw Medical Ltd
YouTube: https://youtu.be/XXRx6KyadHM and https://youtu.be/HtnHqM1JR70
Just looking at this in a bit more detail.
So All Things Open is US based and looks interesting. Intrigued to know how it is funded, how much is down to voluntary effort. I can see the people who are in the core team but their ‘biopics’ don’t give much away about what goes on behind the scenes so to speak. It would seem that they have been around for some time so clearly something works!
According to ChatGPT
All things Open is a US Certified B corporation - and I gather that is a ‘for profit’ organisation that has voluntarily certified itself with B Lab. “.. a for-profit company that has been independently verified by B Lab to operate with high standards of social and environmental responsibility, transparency, and accountability.” No large corporate backer. Todd Lewis would appear to be the long term leader. Funding from corporate sponsors, attendee registration fees, partnerships with non profits, and maybe some merchandise and community activities.
Am I missing something or might something along those lines at a smaller scale have worked for FCI? Might it work to support an FCI follow-on?
I don’t know how long ATO have been in existence, they were not in my awareness until the last year or so. I’m not sure of their funding model, but there may be some ad funding or direct funding support from the tech industry? The site isn’t
As for the business model and applicability to FCI - while a B Corp would possibly have been suitable I think the idea of the FCI being a for-profit would not have been seen as appropriate for many.
My advice for the FCI would have been to set up a Community Interest Company (CIC) - essentially it’s a Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG) with a special section in the constituting documents that defines a ‘community’ it serves and each year you are supposed to consider how you have served that community. I have run two of these over the years (openGPSoC and Leigh Hackspace) and the organisational overhead and cost is really quite minimal - far, far lower than a Charity which seems to me a bikeshedding vehicle for committee-driven thinking and paralysis by groupthink and risk aversion.
Yes - I am familiar with CICs. Both FedIP and UKDHC are CICs - as is the PRSB. CICs are not-for-profit whereas Lab B are for-profit. Not aware that the UK has an exact equivalent to Lab B but CIC seems likely to be closest except that the former is for-profit and the latter not-for-profit. And of course CICs are subject to statutes whereas Lab B seems to be essentially independent and voluntary so not directly subject to statute.
Just interested to see how far they have managed to go, seemingly without any major regular grant. Of course could be / could have been invisible philanthropic input from one or more of the Board members or from elsewhere…