Thomas Beale wrote: > Tim Churches wrote: >> Thomas Beale wrote: >> >> No, what I am trying to point out is that it is *not* the same in >> openEHR, because openEHR archetype definitions are not currently >> licensed under licenses which conform with open source licensing principles. >> > Tim, you have a technical misunderstanding. The stored data in an > openEHR system conform to the reference model specifications, e.g. the > UML seen here: > http://svn.openehr.org/specification/BRANCHES/Release-1.1-candidate/publishing/architecture/computable/UML/uml_start_view.html > > or the XSDs here: > http://svn.openehr.org/specification/BRANCHES/Release-1.1-candidate/publishing/its/XML-schema/index.html. > > The data have archetype meta-information in them as well, but if you are > comparing openEHR to non-archetyped systems, the data are perfectly > comprehensible with the openly published reference model schemas, in the > same way as for other systems. Archetypes have no effect whatever on the > database persisted form of openEHR data: you can build software and a > database for openEHR without ever seeing an archetype. That's the whole > point...
So archetype definitions confer no additional functionality beyond the reference model? That's a rhetorical question - I know the answer. The point is that in openEHR, the archetype definitions used to record and query one's data is very important metadata, and thus it seems to be that an inalienable legal right, conferred by an open source-style license, to modify and share that archetype definition is a rather important freedom with respect to one's data - a freedom which the openEHR Foundation, not by design or malfeasance, merely by neglect, currently fails to grant to all potential users of openEHR archetype definitions obtained from their site. >> Well, it stops academic institutions from being able to modify and >> redistribute openEHR archetype definitions, that's the material >> difference it makes. >> > as I have already pointed out and agreed to (so you don't need to bring > it up again;-): the license used was of the standard kind used for > copyrighted documentary materials (where alteration is undesirable). I > have already agreed that a better license (in the light of the last 4 > years' experience) is more likely to be a source style license (allowing > modification). I am already bringing this up with the board. OK. >> Well for goodness sake say so, in writing, on the Web site and >> preferably on each and every openEHR archetype definition file! That's >> what I have suggested repeatedly to the openEHR Foundation. If you did >> that, you'd have no complaint from me or anyone else. But that is not >> the situation at the moment - the only possible reading of the openEHR >> licensing page is that the document licenses cover openEHR archetype >> definitions. Very easy to fix. >> > actually, we only have complaints from you ;-) Everyone (including > various international modelling efforts) is happy using the materials, > modifying them in archetype tools and so on. As I asked, perhaps I am just being pedantic? > As I have said (I think it > is 4 or 5 times now), a source license is likely to be a better license > for archetypes. OK, I look forward to some corresponding changes in licensing policy of openEHR archetypes. > Also, please take > note of my first point above: the status of archetypes has no effect on > the openness of openEHR data, full stop. It depends what is meant by "openness", but as I point out above, openEHR archetype definitions are metadata which do have some importance for data stored in an openEHR-based systems, and thus the legal right to modify and share them is an important freedom. Is "openness", in the sense of merely being able to view something, the same as "freedom" in the sense it is used in FOSS? . No, and perhaps that is why we are talking at cross-purposes. Perhaps it is better to have openEHR archetype definitions centrally controlled and to prevent or limit how they can be modified and shared around, thus forcing users to always obtain the canonical version of an archetype definition from a central facility? I don't know (although my instinct says "no" to such a proposition. There is not enough of an openEHR archetype ecosystem at this stage, but the manner in which archetype definitions are managed seems like a sociological issue which could have a major impact on the popularity and success of the openEHR initiative. But I have other things to worry about right now, so good luck and best wishes with your openEHR work, Thomas and I look forward to future announcements of openEHR developments. Tim C
