HI! I was also just about to suggest Creative Commons (CC) when I saw the reply from Grahame. There are several CC versions for different purposes, see: http://creativecommons.org/about/ http://creativecommons.org/license/ http://creativecommons.org/about/license/
I'd suggest using the most liberal ones (e.g. "by" or "public domain") for presentational material intended for reuse: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ The "by" licence mixes well with the common scientific publication process. Using software licenses like GPL or EPL for documents can be unnecessarily confusing. The current licence for the openEHR specifications... http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.1/html/architecture/overview/Output/front.html ... seems to be close to... http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ ...so for next specification release one could consider switching to that if a more well known license is wanted. By the way, the web-remake seems to have killed the link referred to in the openEHR specification licence undetected: http://www.openehr.org/free_commercial_use.htm Best regards, Erik Sundvall erisu at imt.liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-227579 On Dec 3, 2007 2:50 AM, Grahame Grieve <grahame at kestral.com.au> wrote: > > If they are on the website, they are fair game for > > re-use > > actually, legally, no > > if they are posted with no details concerning copyright, then > default copyright applies, which is called "fair use". But like > everything legal, "fair use" has a legal definition which differs > from sensible interpretation. In some countries, this difference > has been underlined by applicable case law > > So it's important to be explicit about allowed usage. I use > either EPL (http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.php) or > Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/) > > > Maybe we do.... sugestions are welcome. > > yes, you should, and I suggest either the applicable openEHR > licenses or creative commons. > > Grahame
