But some 'derived' artifacts should also list the original contributors as authors? Doesn't make much sense to me.
2014-10-02 15:53 GMT+02:00 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>: > > Grahame, > > thanks for this, it's very useful. Some questions... > > *Controlling Conformance*: CC-0 just means 'public domain', no copyright. > How do you exert any kind of control (which you mention) over the > conformance not being messed with? Is it just that 'FHIR' is stamped on > everything, and trademark protection actually defines the rights of use? In > which case, aren't we talking about some other piece of legalese to do with > the trademark, that defines when something could have a 'FHIR' trademark on > it? > > *Copyright*: I don't see any harm in having a copyright notice if the > original author(ity) demands it, e.g. Nehta is like this. Copyright is kind > of useless in the land of software and formal models anyway, it's the > licence that counts. > > *Attribution*: Current thinking has been that if archetypes are > copyrighted to whomever, the licence-to-use would require attribution, > which just means listing authors. I think the value here is that artefact > users know that wide consultation and expertise went into the artefact. > Consider for example the BP archetype in CKM: > > > > Would't that 'contributors' list disappear under the new FHIR approach? I > think that would be a problem for openEHR - the contributors list is the > main way that users can get some idea of the quality of the thing. > > > - thomas > > On 02/10/2014 14:05, Grahame Grieve wrote: > > hi > > > we should certainly examine the discussions you have had in FHIR-land. > > The discussions were all private threads, but I can give you a summary > run down. We start with our plain english license: > > * FHIR is ? and ? HL7. The right to maintain FHIR remains vested in HL7 > * You can redistribute FHIR > * You can create derivative specifications or implementation-related > products and services > * Derivative Specifications cannot redefine what conformance to FHIR means > * You can't claim that HL7 or any of its members endorses your derived > [thing] because it uses content from this specification > * Neither HL7 nor any of the contributors to this specification accept > any liability for your use of FHIR > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141002/c4233cf0/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bejcgidi.png Type: image/png Size: 44922 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141002/c4233cf0/attachment-0001.png>
