Tim Churches wrote: > Thomas Beale wrote: > >> Wayne, >> >> agree with all you say below. What is your practical advice? Part of it >> seems to be: avoid home-made licenses. I agree in principle, and I think >> we are mostly ok on this in openEHR the main license for software is the >> Mozilla tri-license 'choice' (MPL/LGPL/GPL). If we make that the license >> for archetypes as well (following Tim Churches' arguments), then that >> covers most things of interest apart from the documents and schemas. >> > > Agreed, although you might want to consider licensing archetype > definitions only under "copyleft" licenses, which include the GPL and > the MPL, but not the LGPL, for the reasons I mentioned previously. > I was just re-reading the licenses today and my conclusion is that only the LGPL makes sense for openEHR archetypes (remember private authors might put any license they like on their own archetypes). We can't require software systems that use archetypes to be GPL'd themselves...copyleft doesn't make sense if it transmits from archetypes to real source code.... > Or you could consider licensing archetype definitions under the Creative > Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license, the plain-English text of > which (there is a legalese version as well, as well as versions in many > other languages) says: > > Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 > You are free: > * to Share -- to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work > * to Remix -- to make derivative works > Under the following conditions: > * Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified > by the author or licensor. > * Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you > may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this > one. > * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the > license terms of this work. > * Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from > the copyright holder. > I will have a look at the legal version (more to the point, I will get the UCL lawyers to do that) > >> need for a license that differs from a fairly typical legal copyright >> statement (recognition of authors), non-modification (i.e. ensure >> reliability). In other words, the kind of thing you find in an OMG >> specification. >> > > How about the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license: > > You are free: > * to Share -- to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work > Under the following conditions: > * Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified > by the author or licensor. > * No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon > this work. > * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the > license terms of this work. > * Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from > the copyright holder. > > Note that if you use the above licenses you need to clearly state in > your documents exactly how you want the works to be cited or attributed, > as that is not spelled out in the text of the license (nor should it be). > > ...The reason, as I mentioned and Wayne expanded > upon, is the legal quagmire which such discriminatory applicability > clauses create, even if the discrimination is in the "affirmative > action" sense,... > hm. My guess is that the practical problem is just identifying who is 'developing nation'? Is the IBM office in Luanda a 'developing nation' user? Same point as Wayne made for 'what is academic'.
- thomas
