On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 10:16 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: > Gerard Freriks <gfrer at luna.nl> wrote: > > > > If enough Archetypes are produced by scientific communities and > > associations and published IP free, > > then what is the problem? > > By "IP free" I assume that you mean published under a suitably permissive > "open source" license. If that is the case, then I agree, no problem. The > issue is that there needs to be strong end user awareness of this issue, and > thus an insistence by end users that archetype definitions are licensed in > such a way, and a refusal to use ones that aren't. > > Tim C
I agree as I believe Tim is simply saying that it is prudent to be explicit instead of implicit regarding the legal status of the archetypes, from the very beginning. Cheers, -- Tim Cook -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060108/a97a5faa/attachment.asc>
