Hi Tom It is normal practice with CC to include clarifications and the whole structure of the license is designed to do this.
Let's stay with the issue of how we stop someone copyrighting and charging for a specialised archetype? Or a template that is fundamental to health care (like an antenatal visit)? Cheers, Sam > -----Original Message----- > From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical- > bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale > Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011 10:30 AM > To: openehr-technical at openehr.org > Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing > question > > On 07/09/2011 21:46, Sam Heard 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. > > I don't think actually changing the text of any accepted, well known > license is a good idea at all - then it becomes something for which no > legal analysis is available, and won't be trusted by anyone. Instead, > openEHR should simply state which kinds of artefacts require which > kinds > of license (if any). > > - thomas > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
