On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 10:08 +0200, Erik Sundvall wrote: > In a previous license discussion I suggested the much more commonly > understood and more open CC-BY licence > (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) to be used for the > specification documents, but I believe the discussion then slipped > over to just licensing for archetypes. Can we solve this while we are > at it?
Well, I'm still waiting to hear from the openEHR Foundation Board (officially) on this issue since they are the only governing body we have. I'm not personally concerned with the notice you pointed out because my re-use strictly adheres to items 2&3. However, commercial users/developers such as Ocean Informatics may or may not be in breach of that license. That is for the Foundation Board to decide. There does seem to be some conflict with some of the content notices and licenses regarding commercial use though. It basically depends on where you look on the website. The openEHR Foundation, as a legal entity in the UK (and the web site claims globally), supported by CHIME/UCL and Ocean Informatics I assume have sought proper legal counsel? --Tim -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090925/33b45f03/attachment.asc>
