At the end of the day, I don't really care what licence is used for
these things in openEHR - maybe the community should just vote. The long
debates from the past are summarised here
<http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Archetype+licensing+-+the+case+for+CC-BY-SA>
and here
<http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+Transition+Feedback+Page>.
This page
<http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal>
contains one attempt I made to state the requirements for each kind of
openEHR IP.
Nevertheless, here are some new thoughts, based on a review of CC-BY-SA
4.0....
I think the key things to remember in resolving this are how the various
artefacts get used, which helps figure where 'adaptation' actually
exists. I can think of the following:
* archetype => template => software application
o the simplest standard practice
o this is USE not ADAPTATION
* archetype => specialise => template => software application
o the next simplest standard practice
o this is USE not ADAPTATION
* archetype => software application
o not a great idea in general - it means that the 'archetypes' are
not really maximal re-usable data sets, but something like
predefined templates. However, someone is bound to do this, and
produce a good product from it.
o this is USE not ADAPTATION
* archetype => forking => modification => templating => software
application
o Result: probably non-interoperable data; but may occur for
pragmatic reasons, e.g. openEHR is too slow to make fixes to the
archetype.
o this is ADAPTATION
According to the CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence text only the last of these paths
means that the final software or other result is an 'adaptation' of the
original archetype, which means that the CC-BY-SA license applies, IF
YOU PUBLICLY SHARE THE ARTEFACT.
Here is relevant licence text from the CC site
<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode> (my bolding):
1. *Adapted Material*means material subject to Copyright and Similar
Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and
in which the Licensed Material is *translated, altered, arranged,
transformed, or otherwise modified *in a manner requiring permission
under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For
purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a
musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is
always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed
relation with a moving image.
2. *Share*means to provide material to the public by any means or
process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such as
reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution,
dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material
available to the public including in ways that members of the public
may access the material from a place and at a time individually
chosen by them.
*
3b ShareAlike*.
1.
In addition to the conditions in Section3(a)
<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a>, if
You Share Adapted Material You produce, the following conditions
also apply.
1. The Adapter's License You apply must be a Creative Commons
license with the same License Elements, this version or later,
or a BY-SA Compatible License.
2. You must include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, the
Adapter's License You apply. You may satisfy this condition in
any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in
which You Share Adapted Material.
3. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or
conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to,
Adapted Material that restrict exercise of the rights granted
under the Adapter's License You apply.
In contrast to what David says, I don't believe a technical
transformation of an archetype, say into some kind of XML or JSON would
be a modification of the original artefact, it's just a downstream
conversion, like rendering an original document written in MarkDown or
Wikimedia-markup into HTML. That's what Wikipedia and Github and
hundreds of other sites already do, and that rendering is not regarded
as an 'adaptation' to my knowledge.
So I think the real legal question is about the last path above -
forking archetypes, modifying the (copy of the) original and then doing
something with that, followed by public sharing. If you fork an
archetype, build software from that, and sell the software you are not
sharing, according to the CC definition above.
Thus, I don't know that CC-BY-SA is actually problematic, unless it
turns out that either technical transformation, including technical use
via compilation into software, constitutes 'adaptation'.
HOWEVER... on reading the non-legal text of CC-BY-SA 4.0
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/>, the impression it
gives is quite different from (my reading of) the legal code! It says:
*
*ShareAlike*--- If you remix, transform, or build upon the material,
you must distribute your contributions under thesame license
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/#>as the original.
That gives the impression that if you make a changed version of a source
work, you have to share your result. But in fact it is trying to say
that IF you openly share the modified source work (not the final
result), you must share with the same license as the source work itself.
I think the short form of this licence is one of the problems here - it
makes it look like you have to share derivative material, but that's not
the case. The licence in fact just prevents you from sharing derivative
material under a different licence, and without proper attribution.
- thomas
On 02/10/2014 08:00, David Moner wrote:
> Hahaha, it's good you always have LinkEHR in mind ;-)
>
> By the way, this is certainly an old and recurring topic. I have
> checked that there were already discussions back in 2009, so probably
> we are going to repeat things already commented.
>
> I will talk about artefacts (archetypes). The first thing to solve in
> my opinion is to agree on what does "derivative work" mean for an
> archetype. Is just modified archetypes? Auto-generated data base
> schemas, validation schematron or other technical artefacts?
> Documentation describing the archetype? I would love to say that only
> the first case applies, but let's thing in an example. Which is the
> license for a movie you make from a CC-BY-SA book? It is for sure a
> derivative work, and the Title 17 Section 101 of the Copyright Act of
> the United States says it very clear:
>
> "A derivative work is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
> such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
> fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
> reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
> work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
> editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
> which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
> derivative work." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101)
>
> Given that definition I don't think a technical transformation of an
> archetype is a different case. So yes, I'm not a lawyer, but I would
> say that fears of implementers of commercial products using openEHR
> archetypes are reasonable if the the CC-BY-SA license is applied as is.
>
> David
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141002/de2da903/attachment-0001.html>
