Tim, There are two possibilities for archetypes that are donated to a place like CKM in openEHR.org.
1. copyright remains with the originator 2. copyright goes to the publisher, which could be openEHR.org, or some national e-health programme, or some other body When there is a license attached (e.g. CC-BY), it doesn't matter that much, since the rights of the user are defined mostly by the license rather than direct reversion to copyright law in some country. However, as with most open source code, it probably makes sense if the copyright is given to openEHR or other publishing entity (e.g. some national e-health programme), since this avoids fights about which of the 20 contributors to an archetype should have copyright. In the end, copyright is a nearly useless concept for changing artefacts, it only really works with unchanging ones like books and paintings. As long as attirbutions to original author(s) and contributors are made in the artefact text, I would say that making the artefact copyright to the relevant publishing organisation makes more sense. Many archetypes won't really have any 'original author' - just contributors, due to being truly team-built artefacts. - thomas On 08/09/2011 00:05, Timothy Cook wrote: > 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 >> >> > > -- Ocean Informatics *Thomas Beale Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics <http://www.oceaninformatics.com/>* Chair Architectural Review Board, /open/EHR Foundation <http://www.openehr.org/> Honorary Research Fellow, University College London <http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/> Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society <http://www.bcs.org.uk/> Health IT blog <http://www.wolandscat.net/> * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110908/1d6fd73d/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ocean_full_small.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5828 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110908/1d6fd73d/attachment.jpg>
