I agree with Tim. The licensing is ambiguous in regard to open licenses (OSI) and copyleft principles of FOSS.
However OpenEHR may want to keep this "open" for change. The archetypes at least, must be protected from being commercialised as they are the collaborative work of many people. Nandalal --- Tim Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Beale wrote: > > Tim Churches wrote: > >> However I am still not completely comfortable > with the way openEHR > >> archetype definitions are licensed. The biggest > problem is probably the > >> indefinite nature of the licensing, because there > is no direct reference > >> to the license(s) which cover them. However, as > far as I understand it, > >> openEHR archetype definitions which are available > from the openEHR > >> archetype repository are covered by the "openEHR > Public Licence" and the > >> "openEHR Free Commercial Use Licence" as detailed > here: > >> > http://www.openehr.org/about_openehr/t_licensing.htm > >> > >> Neither of these licenses can be considered as > adhering to open source > >> licensing principles. The "openEHR Public > Licence" is actually very > >> > > > > from my memory, this license was written by UCL > based on normal > > 'licenses' for re-use of academic materials. The > idea against > > modification is the same as for academic texts and > papers. Whether (in > > hindsight) it was a good license to apply to > archetypes I don't know - > > we now have a lot more experience with them. I > agree that a more > > source-code like license would make sense (since > source licenses are > > oriented toward allowing change; document licenses > are oriented toward > > preserving copyright and not allowing change of > the original). > > > Yes. openEHR archetype definitions are analogous to > the SQL back-end > database schema and triggers, and to some degree to > the middleware > business logic, in traditional applications. All of > these need to be > freely modifiable and shareable if one's data is not > to be locked-in, or > at lest if exchange is not to be seriously hampered. > In open source > applications, the database schema and triggers etc > are all covered by > the open source license, which allows modification > and sharing. > > >> restrictive and does not allow modification or > redistribution of > >> archetype definitions covered by it. The "openEHR > Free Commercial Use > >> Licence" is much less restrictive but > discriminates on the basis of > >> field of endeavour, which is antithetical to the > commonly accepted > >> definition of open source licensing (see > >> http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php ) > > > > Are you saying this because the first paras > mention healthcare? I can't > > find anything else about 'field of endeavour'. > > No, I am referring to the distinction between > "academic" and > "commercial" endeavour which the openEHR licenses > make, and the fact > that the openEHR Free Commercial use License > specifically does not apply > to "Private, Non-Commercial Activities" as it sates > in its Introduction. > > > In any case, the bullet > > points are just examples, as the text of the > license says. > > No it doesn't mention "examples" anywhere except in > the warranties > section. What it actually says is: > > "Commercial Use shall include, without limitation: > * the normal commercial licensing of the > Materials (whether alone, > incorporated into another program or document, or as > a work derived from > the Materials in whole or part); or > * where the Materials are used (whether alone, > incorporated into > another program or document, or as a program or > document derived from > the Materials in whole or part) directly or > indirectly for the > treatment, evaluation or medical care of patients, > or in the recording, > compiling and analysing of any facts, records or > statistics in regard > to, patients." > > Now you may read that as open-ended, but from an > end-user's perspective, > it is uselessly open-ended, as it is never clear > where some other use is > "commercial use" for the purposes of this license or > not, unless the > other use is for teaching or for "Private, > Non-Commercial Activities", > in which case it is not "Commercial use" under this > license. > > Do you see the problem with licenses which restrict > use or applicability > based on field of endeavour - they tie themselves > and would-be users in > knots trying to work out whether one's own field of > endeavour is covered > or not. Very bad practice and a complete turn-off > for widespread adoption. > > > I can't see > > anything in it that limits how you use the > materials; the intent of the > > license is in fact to remove liability for use > from UCL, in other words, > > the usual 'user's responsibility' condition. I am > sure there are better > > licenses around, but so far I am not sure why this > one is broken. > > Well, if a user does not fall under the definition > of "Commercial Use", > or if they do fall into the categories of ""Private, > Non-Commercial > Activities" or teaching, then the licenses limit > them from doing > anything except read the materials. They are not > allowed to share or > modify or redistribute openEHR archetypes. That's > what the licenses say, > Thomas. > > >> However, my biggest concern over openEHR > archetype definition licensing > >> is the lack of any "copyleft" provisions (see > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft ) in either > of the licenses of the > >> above licenses. While copyleft is usually a > desirable but not essential > >> feature for open source licensing of software, I > regard it as completely > >> essential for the licensing of openEHR archetype > definitions if openEHR > >> is to have any chance of fulfilling its promise > of preventing data > >> lock-in. The reason is that if I want to share > some data stored using an > >> openEHR archetype definition with a third party, > I need to be able to > >> share not just my data values, but also the > archetype definition used to > >> record and store them. > > naturally.... > >> If the licensing of that openEHR archetype > >> definition restricts my rights to redistribute > it, then my data is > >> effectively locked in and I can't readily share > it. > >> > > I am not sure why you think the licenses prevent > you sharing the > > archetype (and it is publicly available anyway); > am I missing something? > > If someone extends or modifies an archetype > definition, there is no > compulsion for them to make that extended or > modified archetype > definition freely available. That is, there are no > copyleft provisions > in these archetype definition licenses. > > > Actually, if you want to share your data, you do > want the receiver to > > make sure the archetype was not tampered with. We > haven't done it yet, > > but eventually there will be digitally hashed and > signed archetypes for > > just this reason. (Making a logical modification > is then just creating a > > derivative version). > > > > At risk of stating the obvious, there is no intent > whatever to lock > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
