ND = No Derivatives and is the Creative Commons equivalent of what W3C
has in their licence
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/doc-license>. It's just
designed to prevent anyone republishing altered versions of the
specifications /as the original specifications /- in other words forked
publishing, which would create real problems for obvious reasons.
Probably we do want to allow the forking of the specifications into some
new specifications, i.e. with new names and identifiers, that clearly
cannot confused with the originals, and the ND provision
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/>I believe would prevent
this.
I am not sure what the best replacement is though - it's quite important
that a specification with the title 'openEHR EHR Information Model' and
version xyz really is only one document, and that no modified versions
of that can masquerade as that thing.
W3C achieve this with a custom copyright notice (see above). We probably
want a different approach. I don't personally have time to research this
but ideally we want a licence that does the following for the
specifications:
* requires attribution with all replublishing, sharing
* prevents republishing in altered form with same document title, id,
and also publisher i.e. 'openEHR'
* but allows normal forking into artefacts that are clearly different
- thomas
On 07/09/2015 06:48, Bert Verhees wrote:
The ND on the specs, there must be a kind of protection. Brand
protection could work, but must be registered in all countries of the
world.
You see the same problem at RFC's, they solved it like this, you
cannot change them and publish them under the same name.
In the case of RFC a changed version gets a new number.
I don't know what it takes to make an RFC of something and if it would
be appropriate for OpenEHR.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
