Thanks Larry > Please take a look at > http://www.openwebfoundation.org/faqs/open-web-foundation-cla-1-0-owfa-1-0-faq.
So I had read these at length before, and come away hopelessly confused. I see now that at least part of the reason is a wrong link - the link for OWFa 1.0 (Patent & Copyright) actually points to the OWF CLA 1.0 (Patent & Copyright). But even the link below to the earlier OWFa doesn't seem to point to a license that is suitable to put on the final specification - more of an in process agreement that needs to be made during it's preparation? I think those things are great ideas, but does any standards organisation actually use them? Actually publish standards developed under them? And I don't think they answer my original question either, about derived works. But perhaps I am just too unfamiliar with the content to see how they do. Grahame > -----Original Message----- > From: Grahame Grieve [mailto:grah...@healthintersections.com.au] > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 7:09 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: [License-discuss] Derivative Works of a standard > > I am trying to pick an appropriate open license for a new standard in the > healthcare space. The prospective standard and it's working license are > here: > http://hl7.org/fhir > > The working license is adapted from OMG. but I'm struggling to understand > the concept of derivative works when I consider the issue of standards. > What's a derivative work? As far as I can tell, it's any implementation that > complies with the standard, and that was written based on reading it. And > therefore, since the standards are - almost always - copyright, therefore, > any product that implements any standard needs to include the copyright > notice associated with the standard, per the recent emails on this list. > > Clearly not, however, in practice. Why not? what's the difference? > > Is it only a derivative work if it quotes at length from the source? more > than fair use? where do the html tutorials stand, then, that "derive" from > the html specification in violation of the w3c license? > > I'm finding the concept of derivative works very difficult to define for a > standard. > And given the plain english intent of the standard at the link referenced > above (see below), does the osr have any suitable approved license? I can't > find one. > In particular, we cannot have a requirement to reproduce the > license/copyright statement in implementations of the standard... > > thanks > Grahame > > FHIR is C HL7. The right to maintain FHIR remains vested in HL7 > You can redistribute FHIR > You can create derivative specifications or implementation related > products and services > Derivative Specifications cannot redefine what conformance to FHIR means > You can't claim that HL7 or any of it's members endorses your derived > [thing] because it uses content from this specification > Neither HL7 nor any of the contributers to this specification accept any > liability for your use of FHIR > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss -- ----- http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grah...@healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065 _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
