Gerard Freriks wrote: > Information is exchanged in communities. > All clinical information belongs to the healthcare domain. > > When clinical concept models (Archetypes) are expressed using an Open > International Standard like the CEN/tc251 Archetypes, > both the Archetype expression and the constituting clinical concept > models are not owned in a commercial sense.
Certainly most of us would like that to be true. I was just wondering aloud whether it was true in a strict legal sense. I suspect that it is an issue which requires expert legal advice, and the situation may be subtely different in each country due to differences in copyright law. It just seems like a good idea to investigate such issues when adopting a new paradigm for storing and communicating data. Tim C > On 8-jan-2006, at 10:17, Tim Churches wrote: > >> If the argument above - that there is a need to permanent cache or >> archive copies of archetype definitions with the data which relies on >> them - then all archetype definitions need to be licensed in a manner >> which permits users to keep permanent copies of them. My (limited) >> understanding of copyright law is that such rights are not automatically >> or implicitly granted - thus an explicit license to keep permanent >> copies of archetype definitions will always be needed on every archetype >> definition. Furthermore, if an end user wants to transfer >> his/her data which happens to be stored using an archetype definition >> for which the copyright is held by someone else (which will usually be >> the case, since end users will rarely author their own archetype >> definitions, especially de novo ones), then the archetype definition >> used to store the end user's data must be licensed in a way that permits >> the end user to redistribute that archetype definition to third parties, >> without the need to ask permission from the copyright holder of that >> archetype definition. > > >
