On 10/02/2010 13:48, Stef Verlinden wrote: > > 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: > > 1. /*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*/ > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>_/* (CC-BY-SA).*/ This > is the same license that Wikipedia is using. > 2. /*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 1^st 2009, we plan that it will become > official /open/EHR Foundation policy from January 1^st 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.
yes that needs to be done ASAP. I had forgotten about the Jan 1st condition. - thomas beale -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100210/6be33a29/attachment.html>
