Hi Sam! On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:04, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > Richard has raised the issue of people copyrighting forms and other derived > works based on archetypes and perhaps claiming these cannot be copied. This > seems to be an argument in favour of SA...
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. 1. It seems to me that previously when you argued for Share Alike (SA) you said that derivative works (like GUIs) that were not archetypes should not be seen by the foundation as derivative works covered by the SA-requirement. (It still remains to be detailed if/how such a position by the foundation should be formalised.) 2. Now it sounds like you say that forms based on archetypes really should be considered derivative works and thus need to be released under SA too. Somehow you seem confident that this would solve more potential copyright issues than it would create. Don't you find the views 1 & 2 conflicting? Could you also detail how SA (in 2 above) would stop copy-fights in this setting, is it by disallowing all archetype based systems that are not published under a SA-license, leaving only open source solutions as permitted to use openEHR-hosted archetypes? (Since I like to use and create open source I would find this interesting, but I doubt it would be realistic in today's health care setting :-)) > > If you select CC-BY you can still require that any specialised or > > adapted archetypes _hosted_ by openEHR should be free under CC-BY. > Well, what if the specialised archetype is hosted in Brazil for instance. > What if you receive data from there? I assume you don't have a certain issue with projects based in Brazil (or do you?) and that you instead mean something like: "What if you receive data from a stupid organisation that wants to share data with you and does not understand that they need to release the related archetypes under a licence that allows you to use the related archetypes too?" The above situation may occur no matter what what licence the openEHR-hosted archetypes use (as long as openEHR does have a global monopoly on archetype creation). The way to cure this is not by SA, but by trying to educate stupid organisations on matters of reality. [Now jumping back to a previous part of the discussion...] On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:04, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > Perhaps I could state what I personally see as the ideal state of > archetypes: > 1) That there is a community commitment to develop a shared set of > archetypes as well as detailed and summary display scripts (including > transforms to and from HL7 CDA, v2, CCR etc) which are freely available. This I believe is a goal for most of us involved in openEHR. It is the rules regarding the way to the goal that we are discussing. I question the value of SA as a means for this purpose and I think that a "community commitment" will be based on other things. If you don't have formal powers to force organisations to use your archetypes, and you don't have that since the openEHR specifications are OPEN, then you need to be as attractive as possible by other means (e.g. by having the most interesting and active community). Earlier I have stated why I think SA might make you less attractive and that it might provide a good starting ground for a competing non-SA community. A licence was not the tool to check integrity of archetypes (instead digital signing etc was). Likewise I doubt that a SA-licence would be the right tool to fight fragmentation of efforts. > 2) That these archetypes can be specialised for local use but that these > specialisations, should they be published, remain freely available to others > and under copyright of the openEHR Foundation so that other people can > specialise them further if appropriate. Whether the copyright of a CC-BY licenced archetype is assigned to openEHR or somebody else is irrelevant for this purpose. Anybody is free to build anything from a CC-BY work (including archetype specialisations) the same goes for a CC-BY-SA provided you release the new work as CC-BY-SA. > 4) That repositories for archetypes are federated to allow searching and > that specialisation is possible for any one searching these without seeking > permission from anyone (ie federated CKMs, national etc, use openEHR > copyright and licenses). Again, the copyright assignment is not an issue if you go for CC-BY. A well specified way/interface to query each others repositories (machine-to-machine, not GUI) would be a good thing here though. How do you for example query Ocean Informatics closed-source proprietary CKM (used by openEHR) from another program? Is there a specification published? Being able to extract the entire content contributed by the community would raise the credibility of the currently employed solution. > 5) That no one using archetypes could be accused of copying someone else's > forms or screen rendering based on archetypes. We could wish for this no matter what archetype licensing we use. Don't you think people might try to make trouble no matter what licence we use. Even if a system was based a different underlying information model companies might complain if a competitor's system's screen forms are direct copies of their well researched and mostly manually crafted GUI. (I feel sorry for countries like USA that have strong software patents.) 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.)
