Sam, Just to be clear. Is it yours and the boards intent that all archetypes and templates be marked as copyright openEHR Foundation?
Thanks. On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 15:46, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > -- ================ Timothy Cook, MSc LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook Skype ID == timothy.cook Academic.Edu Profile: http://uff.academia.edu/TimothyCook
