Hi! > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 16:54, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> > wrote: >> 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)?
So, Sam have you finally dropped the thought that CC-BY-SA would protect against patent system abuse? We have not gotten a clear answer to this yet. Is your only remaining concern now that you believe copyright law might be so strong that it would stop possibilities to do specialisations with the same main functionality as possibly copyrighted useful specialisations? Is that your only remaining "SA" motive? Sam, since you are and have been so extremely powerful in the formal openEHR decision process, we really need to understand your thoughts, thus I and others have been probing to figure out your reasoning for years. On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 00:21, Timothy Cook <timothywayne.cook at gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe that isn't such a bad thing. ?They are only roping themselves > into their own corner. :-) We as a community could always provide help in highlighting those "ropes" via: - Technical means: license detection upon import of archetypes and EHR data (as described on the wiki) - Social & political means: questioning the fairness and wisdom of parties trying to block the common good of semantic interoperability. Their income often somehow originates from public funding and they should be concerned about potential badwill. We can probably also get around the hypothetical/potential problem by making a similar (hopefully even better) specialisation ourselves (not an exact copy) that covers the same needs. It will be hard for the "copyrighting and charging"-bad guys to claim that another implementation of the idea is a verbatim copy (prohibited by copyright) and that their work has enough innovation height that is not obvious to skilled persons (and thus patentable). The same argument goes the other way too - even ideas from a CC-BY-SA licensed archetype from openEHR may be fairly closely re-implemented as completely closed/copyrighted and it would be both hard and time-consuming for the openEHR foundation to try and stop this (anti-interoperable) approach, so let's reduce the temptation by simply using CC-BY. Copyright does not stop ideas the same broad way patents do. To software people I believe it's obvious that improvement-ideas in commercial closed source forks of e.g. apache-licensed software projects does not prevent the open source original project to reimplement similar ideas (as long as the closed source code is not copied). Copyright is not nearly as harmful as patents in these cases. On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 01:37, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > Our advice was that having copyright simplifies the world. Having said that > the same archetypes now exist in other repositories with copyright assigned > to the national provider, so it is already murky. Well, if the national providers had been encouraged to use CC-BY instead of CC-BY-SA then it wouldn't matter at all who had the copyright (as Tom has pointed out several times over the years)... On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 05:25, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > ...government agencies and companies will want to know that no one has > recourse to legal action if they use an archetype. Is that a "copy" of the ideas behind my argument _against_ CC-BY-SA? :-) Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733
