Hi! On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 16:35, Richard Dixon Hughes <richard at dh4.com.au> wrote: > My first reaction is to disagree with you about a form based on an > archetype not being an adaptation of an archetype - in my view that > would be at least debatable, depending on the facts of each > case.
Richard, this resonates with my fears regarding SA-requirements for Archetypes. There will be very many other cases we probably have not thought of yet. Can a proprietary or a CC-BY-licensed openEHR template be based on CC-BY-SA archetypes? Can a closed source medical device (e.g. a pulse oximeter) include a transmission format based on CC-BY-SA-archetypes? etc. etc. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 13:23, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > 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. Sam, what matters here is not what _you_ think would be OK, but what the license says if somebody wants to go to court e.g. to create trouble for a competitor, and how that potentially scares people/organisations away from using openEHR-hosted archetypes and might instead build momentum for an alternative archetype community using licenses that allow more freedoms. If we want to use a simple well known CC-license, then CC-BY, (or possibly CC-0, http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0) would avoid these issues. But the interesting thing here is probably not to make a list of potential problems, but instead to see if there really are any real benefits of a CC-BY-SA requirement that can't be met by just using e.g. CC-BY. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 13:23, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: >So the 'SA' license is really there to ensure that specialised or > adapted archetypes based on openEHR archetypes remain freely available. If you select CC-BY you can still require that any specialised or adapted archetypes _hosted_ by openEHR should be free under CC-BY. Exchanging archetype based health data between organisations is pretty pointless if you don't share the archetypes somehow, so I don't quite see the driving force for organisations _not_ to use CC-BY for archetypes used in data that they want to exchange with others. (For commercial clinical trials there may be a case for secret/private archetypes during the trial though since the archetype may reveal things about the trial structure. Do we really want to forbid these to in some cases be be specialisations of openEHR-hosted archetypes?) On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 13:23, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > 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. Sam could you clarify: Do you mean that your main worry is that you are afraid that somebody will take CC-BY-licensed archetypes from the openEHR-hosted repository, modify them a bit, and then redistribute under a less free license and start charging for it? Or do you have any other concerns that you can clarify? Won't your feared modified redistribution only be a problem to interoperability if, all the following comes true: a) If users will really consider the "commercial" versions to be a lot better than the openEHR-hosted versions and are willing to pay for something they used to get for free. b) If the adaptations, if found useful by openEHR, are of such innovation height that the modifying company can claim copyright/patent on the changes and somehow block openEHR from incorporating similar features in their revised archetype versions. c) If national programmes/authorities etc. will start telling people to use the "commercial" versions instead of the openEHR ones for national exchange use. (Or more likely they would start their own repository for international archetypes under e.g. OHT or some other organisation.) d) If the really valuable clinical community creating and maintaining archetypes etc. stop supporting the work in the openEHR repository in favour of other alternatives. I think c and d would only happen if openEHR messes up their governance and/or community support, and if that is the case, then it is actually a good thing that the community, using CC-BY, can take the archetype collection and keep innovating elsewhere. CC-BY might actually pressure the openEHR foundation to do a better job than if feeling too "safe" behind CC-BY-SA. (No matter what you think of Google, have a look at their Data Liberation Front http://www.dataliberation.org/ ) The more formal power you try to cling on to, the more informal power you risk to lose. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 16:35, Richard Dixon Hughes <richard at dh4.com.au> wrote: > In any case, there is a delicate balance and tension in the open > source licensing that allows vendors to use archetypes in commercial > products (expanding the appeal of openEHR) as against ensuring that > work contributed to the common good remains freely available to all > (ensuring ongoing community of interest support). Yes, this is the core of the problem. Will a SA-requirement really be necessary to keep the community interested? I believe not. Today the situation of the archetype development in the (closed source, Ocean created CKM tool) at http://openehr.org/knowledge/ is only marked "copyright (c) 2009 openEHR Foundation", so legally it seems like we don't know if those archetypes can be used in any system without explicit permission from the openEHR Foundation, the foundation is also of course now free to upon request grant permission to any commercial or derivative use of the current archetypes. Still people are happily engaged in the work, there is some kind of community trust, which is a nice thing. Some companies with close connections to the foundation also seem to be comfortable with using these archetypes within their products and services, nice for them. I believe this proves that there might be an interested community even under very unclear licensing conditions and that they don't seem to mind if their contributions may be used commercially without a licence guarantee demanding derivative works also to be open. The observation can of course also be used to prove that they might accept contributing to something that they don't know if they can use in non-SA-like systems themselves later if the foundation would elect to use SA. The private contributions from people using their un-paid spare time to help openEHR are wonderful, let's do all we can to encourage it that continue. I also believe more health professionals will be allowed to engage in archetype authoring on paid work time once openEHR's importance starts to increase. One of the best things that can happen to an open source software project is that some powerful entities start investing engagement an developer time in the project, that happens today also in openEHR (sometimes indirectly) where e.g. state-run agencies have paid consultancy and research to the people doing a lot of the openEHR specification work and validation/implementation (e.g. through Ocean Informatics and academic research institutions). It will be wise to keep those state & commercial payers/players happy and assured that they and all their subcontractors can use the time/money/engagement invested in openEHR without any additional legal hassle and special permissions from the openEHR foundation board. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 14:29, Stefan Sauermann <sauermann at technikum-wien.at> wrote: > The target is to keep archetypes available for free. And to put them > under a strict management. >... > Developers might be charged a small licensing fee, similar to what you > pay when you buy a standard from IEEE or CEN or ISO. Stefan, I and many others believe licensing fees for standards are counterproductive. It would be better to charge for voluntary certification that proves if products adhere to standards, in case you need additional ways to make money. I am glad licensing fees have not been suggested by the openEHR foundation. And what would the process be, would it be as for standards documents, no access to documents/archetypes before payment? Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 (Mail & tel. recently changed, so please update your contact lists.)
