Hi Eric An issue that I am concerned about that needs consideration is the Collection. As a director of the openEHR Foundation, I am concerned that we do not set up a situation where people merely collect or make minor adaptations of an archetype and make it commercially available.
Your concern seems largely to relate to the derivative works. I believe that the Foundation is only concerned here about derivative archetypes. I would not consider a form or other coded artefact to be a derivative work of the archetype. So the 'SA' license is really there to ensure that specialised or adapted archetypes based on openEHR archetypes remain freely available. I would think we could make a statement to be clear about this on the licensing page. I am interested in other people's views and I am sure David and Dipak will as well. Cheers, Sam > -----Original Message----- > From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical- > bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Erik Sundvall > Sent: Monday, 14 September 2009 7:44 PM > To: Stef Verlinden > Cc: For openEHR clinical discussions; For openEHR technical discussions > Subject: Re: License and copyright of archetypes > > Hi Stef! > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:02, Stef Verlinden <stef at vivici.nl> wrote: > > Personally I would like to advocate a CC-BY-SA license: everybody is > allowed > > to use and modify the content as long as they attribute the author > (BY part) > > and if If one alters, transforms, or builds upon this work, one may > > distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license > to this > > one (SA part). For more > > information: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ > > In many cases I like the idea of SA (Share Alike) as a way of > spreading (forcing?) openness to more areas, especially when it comes > to certain software settings, but regarding the openEHR specifications > and archetypes I'd suggest using just CC-BY ( > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ ) in order to avoid hard > questions regarding what "non-open" things are to be regarded as > derivative works, see examples below. We probably want openEHR to be > used in all kinds of mixed private/public settings. > > In august 2008 I some of us had an off-list discussion regarding > archetype licensing I quote myself (since I do not know if I have > permission to quote others in that discussion), note that the quoted > text below regards archetypes, not the openEHR specifications... > > "What kind of value do you believe the SA requirement will add in the > case of archetypes? > > SA does not require you to actively submit anything to any process, > just to license your derivative work under the same license to whoever > happens to get hold of it somehow. People will submit works to a any > review processes they find valuable, and most likely that will include > openEHR's public process. > > Requiring SA in addition to BY might add value or it might mostly add > complications and hard-to-interpet situations regarding what a > derivative work is. Is data entered using the archetype a derivative > work? > Is a template or screen-form based on the archetype a derivative work? > Is a book using the archetype in an example a derivative work? A > specialization of an archetype intended for top-secret medical > research is most likely a derivative work, is that a problem or not? It > is issues like these that get companies uneasy regarding using things > with SA-licencing-schemes (such as GPL) in some situations. > > Another question is if SA is necessary in an openEHR-based health > record exchange system. If you want to exchange archetyped data you're > probably in most cases requested to supply the used archetype too > anyway. > > There may very well be good things in having BY-SA instead of only BY, > but could you please clarify what you had in mind?" > > ...that ends the quote from 2008. > > Regarding the specifications additional questions like these arise with > SA: > - Can you write a commercial (i.e. a non CC-BY-SA) book or commercial > presentation slides about openEHR? > - Is an openEHR software implementation based on stubs autogenerated > from openEHRs UML files to be considered a derivative work that can > not be "closed" source code? Can it be released under e.g. Apache, > MIT, or BSD license or not? > > Best regards, > Erik Sundvall > erik.sundvall at liu.se (previously erisu at imt.liu.se) > http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-227579 > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
