On 22/03/2012 12:03, David Moner wrote: > > Hello, > > Back again with the licensing topic of archetypes, with a real use case. > > We have been asked to help in creating a set of 13606 archetypes for > breast and prostate cancer. Although they will probably incorporate > some new requirements, the main source will be some of the openEHR > archetypes available at the CKM. > Assuming that the have adopted a CC-BY(-SA) license (I cannot recall > which is the state of that discussion), the doubts are the following: > > - Converting the archetype to a new reference model is considered as a > derivation? Or the openEHR archetype is considered just as a reference > material as could be any textbook or paper? > - The author of the new archetype has to be the one of the openEHR > archetype (Ian McNicoll btw) or the person who in fact creates the new > RM-based archetype? > > The underlying question here that should be clarified is to define > which is the extension of the concept "derived work".
if it is the same archetype, then it is a derived work. Which is fine, that's what CC-BY is for. My understanding of the term is that a machine conversion to another format (which is essentially what you are saying) would be a derived work - legally not different from JPG -> PNG I suspect. - thomas
