Op 10 feb 2010, om 14:07 heeft Bert Verhees het volgende geschreven: > It is not the juridical status of a company that makes the difference for the > IP-status of something. If an organization is not-for-profit or for-profit, > both can issue all kinds of IP-licenses. > The company form has nothing to do with the licenses it issues
I agree, but the way Gerard puts it, seems to imply it does. About the IP licenses. The OpenEHR board issued an e-mail on Okt 2nd 2099 in which they announce that: '.... We have discussed the issues set out above, at length, and they cannot be quickly decided upon, safely. We view it as our role, at this stage, to publish here an interim statement of the policy issues we have identified and the direction of travel we are following, for the Foundation, which is as follows: To meet immediate needs, we are minded to publish archetypes managed at http://www.openEHR.org/knowledge from the Foundation under the Creative Commons license ? specifically the Attribute and ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA). This is the same license that Wikipedia is using. We also propose, at a minimum, that the copyright of all archetypes managed at http://www.openEHR.org/knowledge should be assigned to the Foundation. This is needed to ensure that the Foundation can give permission to others to adapt the work (see the CC license for details). We will continue to listen and consult on the wider issues discussed in this interim statement. We must align the Foundation?s approach with the requirements and plans of our partners in IHTSDO and EuroRec and with the development of the new governance framework and business plan now needed for the Foundation. We will keep the plan under close review over the period ahead, as we work with EuroRec, IHTSDO and others to fund a major experimental and clinically driven project for clinical content quality assurance, embracing archetypes and terminology. This interim statement is now on the wiki at http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Archetypes+-+Copyright+and+Licensing. Subject to any necessary rethinking as a Board, arising from responses we receive before December 1st 2009, we plan that it will become official openEHR Foundation policy from January 1st 2010, when a set of rules covering its implementation will also be published. We will also consider whether and in what form we might usefully propose guidelines for how copyright in archetypes might best be managed in other contexts, such as a) when managed by governments on national or regional servers, b) when managed privately by healthcare organisations, professional bodies or companies, and c) when managed experimentally, eg in research programmes.' As far as I'm aware the above has become openEHR foundation policy as of January 1st 2010. I have to admit that these changes in the IP status can't be found on the openEHR homepage at this moment. Can somebody please place the renewed 'Statement on Copyright and Licensing of Archetypes' at a prominent place at the openEHR website. Cheers, Stef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100210/13682983/attachment.html>
