Hi Erik, On the licensing front, I was taken by some of the issues that Richard raised and the concern I was expressing was the possibility of people claiming that a particular template was their design - a group of archetypes and then creating a form based on that. This looked particularly problematic for clinical users from my perspective. SA seems to offer some protection for that scenario. I think you are focussing of the users in the traditional software sense (a very important group if you want uptake) and not the clinicians and other expert users who create the archetypes and who I want to be the leaders in both creation and use.
Your arguments for not using SA are well put. I do not want to force people to use openEHR Foundation archetypes - we all want the best ones to be out there in use. If, as you say, a commercial effort created the best set and everyone started using it, then that will be the interoperability space. At the moment archetypes are freely available. The idea here is to get the best possible license to help the develop the sort of community activity that is what we want to see. BY alone is clearly a choice, SA adds a major condition that we need to consider carefully. Thanks for your challenging response. Regarding CKM. I sense that you would prefer it was open source and that is where I started as well. Ocean worked on that basis with Central Queensland University for 3 years and had an academic team using the usual stack (mySQL, Apache etc) and just couldn't get there. We chose to use a closed source asset management engine from a small company in Australia to get something working and I believe our team, led by Sebastian, Heather and Ian, have created something wonderful. It might be that there will be open source tools that do this job in the future but I suspect these will flourish in the commercial sector for the time being (Arcitecta's clients are largely research institutes and universities!). It would be good to have a list of interfaces for CKM people would like from this service. You can look in the Archetype Editor for some specs immediately as this pulls web-based files from CKM. I will ask Sebastian to put the interfaces on the openEHR wiki. The things you can do already: 1. Pull down all the archetypes in a zip file. 2. Get a list of archetypes as a web service and download any you want. Any refinements of the interface people would like to have, put it on the list or send it to Sebastian. The platform CKM is running on is Linux and Java (Could be Windows Server) with this component in the middle. We should have a plug-in framework going shortly as this is basically how the underlying engine operates anyway. Cheers, Sam > -----Original Message----- > From: openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-clinical- > bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Erik Sundvall > Sent: Tuesday, 13 October 2009 8:43 PM > To: For openEHR clinical discussions > Cc: For openEHR technical discussions > Subject: Re: License and copyright of archetypes > > 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.) > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
