David,
no offence was intended (at all). I was trying to point out (badly) in
the context of the current discussions on licensing and openEHR that, if
CC-BY had been in place in the past, then:
* the CEN 13606-2 standard, being a copy of work done by openEHR (with
adaptations done to wording as required by CEN/ISO), would have been
required to acknowledge the original authors and copyright, AND
* that further derivative works would also have to do this.
As I don't work in academia, I don't care as much about 'being
recognised as the author' as some people might, but I do care about the
impression being given of an organisation having invented something when
this is not the case - mainly because it prevents readers from
understanding where the technology came from in the first place, and
referring back to it, e.g. to find more recent versions, software, and
community.
I don't think this is unreasonable.
- thomas
On 09/09/2011 20:51, David Moner wrote:
> Ok, but again, the referenced documents at that epSOS annex are CEN EN
> 13606 part 1 and CEN EN 13606 part 2. If openEHR has to be mentioned
> is in those documents, not in this annex since it only deals with
> 13606 and the archetype/ADL summary is just for clarifying concepts
> for the reader and not a complete history about the technology behind.
>
> David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110910/47115c4d/attachment.html>
