Thanks Stef The previous Board did not want to make an error and use too loose a licence given that there is no going back.
Our concern is that someone could specialize an archetype and claim copyright, or create a template and do the same. It is our intention at this stage to have a specific clause in the licence that limits it to derived archetypes and templates. At all discussions with industrial parties this has been acceptable, many see it as positive as the corollary of Eric's approach (which may be the best) is that there are heaps of archetypes out there that have openEHR attribution but are copyright to other parties. Is it clear what I am saying. It is a conundrum - and needs careful appraisal before going to BY alone. Cheers Sam Sent from my phone On 07/09/2011, at 10:38 PM, Stef Verlinden <stef at vivici.nl> wrote: > > Op 7 sep 2011, om 09:55 heeft Erik Sundvall het volgende geschreven: > >> Do read that wikipage and follow the links there to the mail >> discussions. What is it that you think is missing or unclear in the >> arguments against SA? > > > > That they're hidden in a lot of text form which one has to follow through > hyperlinks and read even more text. > > You stated somewhere - correctly - that companies want to avoid risk, > similarly decision makers want to avoid reading through lengthy discussion > (from which they have to draw there own conclusions:-) ) > > > If I understand you correctly your main argument is that: > > the share alike (SA) requirement will create a risk for lengthy juridical > procedures - in every country they operate - for companies who include > openEHR archetypes or derivatives thereof in their systems. Since companies > avoid risk, they will choose other solutions without an SA requirement. > > The reason for this is that it's not clear what SA exactly means. For > instance in the context of building archetype-based GUI- stubs, forms etc. in > proprietary systems. As a consequence it could be possible that companies are > forced - unwillingly - to open up the source of their proprietary systems. It > will take years and many court cases, in different countries, to sort this > out. Until then (the large) companies will stay away from openEHR. > > This problem can be avoided completely by dropping the SA requirement. > > > So I guess the first question is: who has a solid argument against Erik's > argument. > > The second question is: what are the exact benefits of the SA requirement and > are they worth the risk of companies not using openEHR at all (presuming > that's a real risk). > > > Cheers, > > Stef > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110908/b6e24d5e/attachment.html>
