Title: Message
|
Regarding 'We have
trademarked openEHR and do not release anything without copyright as there is a
need for an authorative publisher of archetypes.'
As the Free Commercial Licence
says:
where you modify, adapt, incorporate (in whole or part) the
Materials or create a work (in any form) which is derived from the Materials
(Modified Work) you must cause the Modified Work to carry a prominent notice
stating that you changed the Materials and the date of the change in addition to
the requirements of paragraph 1 immediately above.
on each occasion on which you supply the Materials to a third
party, you shall supply a copy of the provisions of this Free Commercial Use
Licence to the third party. You may not impose any further restrictions on the
third party with respect to the Materials.
Doesn't that mean that after any archetype is released out into the
wild by the authorative publisher you've granted the right to modify and
further distribute the archetype so that any other party can thereafter act
as a provider of those archetypes as long as the fact of modification is noted.
Thus all commercial EHR's will quickly diverge to a set of non-aligned
versions.
As Hugh Leslie wrote:
"You are absolutely right that
having a centralised archetype repository that
is properly managed is
important. openEHR won't work if everyone is using
different archetypes for
the same thing."
but as a centralised
repository isn't enforced by the licence isn't the practical
conclusion therefore that 'openEHR won't work' ? Or perhaps that the
defacto central repository will be the repository of modified archetypes
maintained by the dominant commercial player?
Nigel
Tim
I think this is a very helpful
suggestion. We have trademarked openEHR and do not release anything without
copyright as there is a need for an authorative publisher of archetypes. The
openEHR Foundation will not accept any archetypes that are not free to
use to be labelled with openEHR.
Cheers, Sam
Tim Churches
wrote:
Dr Nigel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also note the "copyright (c) 2004 Ocean Informatics" on the archetype.
See http://www.openehr.org/about_openehr/t_licensing.htm for details of the licenses under which this and other openEHR material is distributed. A reminder: open source does not mean "no copyright" - in fact, the opposite: open source licensing relies on assertion of copyright and observance of copyright law. However, the copyright holder then uses an explicit license to grant additional rights to end users, as copyright law permits the copyright holder to do.
However, I think that it would be useful to provide a pointer to the licensing provisions in each and every archetype published by openEHR (and others) - make it part of the archetype metadata.
Tim C
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
|
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
