As I have probably said before, I don't have the time or expertise to personally work out questions of CC-BY versus CC-BY-SA, I just have one request: could people who have points to make about this consider updating the page http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Archetypes+-+Copyright+and+Licensing so that we have a clear exposition of the various points of view. It may be that a legal professional at UCL or elsewhere could be solicited for an opinion - but they would need something to read. In any case, if it is the online community who makes the decision, I think we need a clear summary of the positions.
Maybe Erik you could take over the page initially to just set out your arguments so we can refer to them. I have to admit that Eriik's basic argument seems solid to me: the link between archetypes (as opposed to templates) and final software or other artefacts is somewhat distant, and I think trying to promulgate rights and conditions of use through a large, uncontrollable and vague network of intermediate artefacts and organisations.... It would be nice to resolve this last details ASAP, so we can announce the decision, and change the archetypes accordingly to have the correct license. - thomas beale > Hi! > > > 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. > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 23:34, Thomas Beale > <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > > yes that needs to be done ASAP. I had forgotten about the Jan 1st condition. > > And _please_ make them CC-BY _not_ CC-BY-SA! I still have not heard > any well grounded non-confused good arguments why SA would help the > openEHR hosted collection of archetypes more than it would hurt it. > > When it comes to software it's tricky enough to know what share-alike > (SA) means when "linking" or "using" code that is LGPL, MPL etc in a > closed source system. It works somewhat well because there is a fairly > common understanding of the difference between calling a method in a > class and on the other hand copying, inheriting from or modifying a > class. We don't want the techno-juridical mess of trying to figure out > what SA means e.g. in the context of building archetype-based > GUI-stubs, forms etc. in proprietary systems. > > Companies want to avoid risk. SA-archetypes would be a risk in this > context until proven in court not to be (courts in every country where > the company is working). That risks setting back trust in openEHR a > couple of years. > > (And no Sam, SA won't protect anything from stupid patenting claims, > the possibility of showing well published prior art will though...) > > 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-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- Thomas Beale Chief Technology Officer Ocean Informatics
