Archetype licensing
Hi Everyone The Board discussed the licensing arrangements regarding the archetypes held on openEHR.org. The principles are: .The Foundation wishes to ensure that all archetypes contributed to the openEHR Foundation are available without restriction to others to use to improve health care and eHealth .That the semantic expression of the content is what is deemed to be 'collectively owned' by clinicians and other domain experts. We have seen some heated debate and concerns by others and it would appear that we are at a sort of stalemate. The alternatives that seem sensible are: 1. To continue with the current approach: to require transfer of copyright to the openEHR Foundation by any agency contributing the archetype or template 2. To request that the archetype is contributed under the CC-BY license (with a permissions clause saying what attribution applies to) 3. To request that the archetype is contributed under the CC-BY-SA license (with a permissions clause saying what share alike applies to) 4. To request that the archetype is contributed under the CC0 (public domain) license a. See: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 The consensus of the Board at the last meeting was that our intention in transferring copyright was to ensure that the use of archetypes could not be restricted by third parties. The other CC licenses do make demands on the users and will require permission clauses. Erik and Thomas are concerned about the effect of SA on commercial uptake, BY has its own problems for derived works with describing what attribution is required. So, we are asking the list, what do you think about having no copyright for archetypes contributed to the CKM? Would this make them more attractive for users? Would people who contribute them be less likely to do so? Cheers, Sam -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110920/71d04f6f/attachment.html
Archetype licensing
Hi Sam and Everyone, I think we had enough discussion about licensing for the artefacts, archetypes and templates and we cannot get conclusion without calling for votes. JIRA vote plugins seems available for this vote. https://studio.plugins.atlassian.com/wiki/display/VOTE/JIRA+Voters+and+Watcher+Plugin https://studio.plugins.atlassian.com/wiki/display/JOUT/Poll+Plugin Best regards, Shinji 2011/9/20 Sam Heard sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com: Hi Everyone The Board discussed the licensing arrangements regarding the archetypes held on openEHR.org. The principles are: The Foundation wishes to ensure that all archetypes contributed to the openEHR Foundation are available without restriction to others to use to improve health care and eHealth That the semantic expression of the content is what is deemed to be ?collectively owned? by clinicians and other domain experts. We have seen some heated debate and concerns by others and it would appear that we are at a sort of stalemate. The alternatives that seem sensible are: 1.? To continue with the current approach: to require transfer of copyright to the openEHR Foundation by any agency contributing the archetype or template 2.? To request that the archetype is contributed under the CC-BY license (with a permissions clause saying what attribution applies to) 3.? To request that the archetype is contributed under the CC-BY-SA license (with a permissions clause saying what share alike applies to) 4.? To request that the archetype is contributed under the CC0 (public domain) license a.? See: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 The consensus of the Board at the last meeting was that our intention in transferring copyright was to ensure that the use of archetypes could not be restricted by third parties. The other CC licenses do make demands on the users and will require permission clauses. Erik and Thomas are concerned about the effect of SA on commercial uptake, BY has its own problems for derived works with describing what attribution is required. So, we are asking the list, what do you think about having no copyright for archetypes contributed to the CKM? Would this make them more attractive for users? Would people who contribute them be less likely to do so? Cheers, Sam ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
Archetype licensing
wikipagehttp://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Archetype+licensing+-+the+case+for+CC-BY-SAand clarify questioned points 2. let the entire board (not only Sam) formulate the questions, and let the community review the questions if there is to be any kind of voting 3. if there is to be any *public *voting, then the board first needs to figure out how to handle the procedure and results since there is no formal community input process. If that can not be found or prioritized right now, then the new board likely needs to take it's responsibility to do the voting themselves. If also the new board goes copyleft/SA, which they of course are fully entitled to do, then people and organisations wanting to avoid the copyleft viral risks can start planning properly for alternative archetype collections with well tested permissive licenses and wouldn't need to bother bringing up the licence issue (and a possible re-merge of efforts) again until the new more community-base openEHR organization (that might vote differently) is in place. Personally I don't think such a split would be desirable but understandable. Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:35, Shinji KOBAYASHI skoba at moss.gr.jp wrote: Hi Sam and Everyone, I think we had enough discussion about licensing for the artefacts, archetypes and templates and we cannot get conclusion without calling for votes. JIRA vote plugins seems available for this vote. https://studio.plugins.atlassian.com/wiki/display/VOTE/JIRA+Voters+and+Watcher+Plugin https://studio.plugins.atlassian.com/wiki/display/JOUT/Poll+Plugin Best regards, Shinji 2011/9/20 Sam Heard sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com: Hi Everyone The Board discussed the licensing arrangements regarding the archetypes held on openEHR.org. The principles are: ?The Foundation wishes to ensure that all archetypes contributed to the openEHR Foundation are available without restriction to others to use to improve health care and eHealth ?That the semantic expression of the content is what is deemed to be ?collectively owned? by clinicians and other domain experts. We have seen some heated debate and concerns by others and it would appear that we are at a sort of stalemate. The alternatives that seem sensible are: 1. To continue with the current approach: to require transfer of copyright to the openEHR Foundation by any agency contributing the archetype or template 2. To request that the archetype is contributed under the CC-BY license (with a permissions clause saying what attribution applies to) 3. To request that the archetype is contributed under the CC-BY-SA license (with a permissions clause saying what share alike applies to) 4. To request that the archetype is contributed under the CC0 (public domain) license a. See: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 The consensus of the Board at the last meeting was that our intention in transferring copyright was to ensure that the use of archetypes could not be restricted by third parties. The other CC licenses do make demands on the users and will require permission clauses. Erik and Thomas are concerned about the effect of SA on commercial uptake, BY has its own problems for derived works with describing what attribution is required. So, we are asking the list, what do you think about having no copyright for archetypes contributed to the CKM? Would this make them more attractive for users? Would people who contribute them be less likely to do so? Cheers, Sam -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110920/bf1e538c/attachment.html
Archetype licensing
On 20/09/2011 11:28, Erik Sundvall wrote: Hi! Shinji might be correct in that we had enough discussion about licensing (even though I think some of the questions asked for years have been avoided rather than answered), but IF it is time to vote then the alternatives 1-4 and the place (clinical list) for the vote are highly questionable. I also question the wisdom of letting Sam alone decide this potential voting procedure. It is also questionable what value a vote by anybody else than the board would mean, there is no formal community process in place in openEHR yet, the board is the only formal power. Some issue details: *a) *I don't think it is fair *move the place* to discuss the issue several times. By moving the place of discussion away from the places were arguments and counter arguments are already visible does not lead to a less heated discussion, rather it leads to repetitions in order to ensure that the arguments and unanswered questions are visible where the action is. Is the move because you fear the visibility of counter arguments and unanswered questions or is there some other understandable reason? * First we had list discussions on the technical list * Then we were asked to use a first wikipage including wikipage comments: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal (OK move since this is neither purely technical or clinical) * Then a second wikipage including wikipage comments: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Archetype+licensing+-+the+case+for+CC-BY-SA (Questionable split/move) just to clarify: the point of doing this was to have a known place where the actual Transition proposal was posted and described in detail, as opposed to various informal 'proposals' / discussions so far. Remember, what we are discussing is what is in the Transition white paper, and if the discussion changes the white paper, then that needs to be recorded as well. It does mean some repetition unfortunately, but we need to encapsulate the discussion about the Transition document properly. - thomas -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110920/dc6366dd/attachment.html
Archetype licensing
Hi Shinji / Erik, I appreciate the licensing discussions seem to have been going on forever for some people but for many of us, including some member od the interim Board like myself, this is a new subject and needs re-visited and teased out. Erik has done a sterling job in pulling together the various discussions and arguments on the wiki and although any detailed discussion should take place there, I think it is fair enough for the list to be used to highlight 'current thinking'. I don't think Sam was putting forward an exclusive list of suggestions, merely setting out a reasonable summary of the options being looked at afresh. Although I appreciate that most of the licensing expertise will be on the Technical lists, these discussions are really confined to the licensing model for the clinical artefacts and as such I think this list is appropriate. In any case, most active openEHR members will be signed up to both. I am particularly interested in the CC-0 Public Domain option, as it avoids the encumbrance of attribution, as well as the difficulties of BY-SA that Erik and others have highlighted. Are there any good other arguments against CC-0? - reply on wiki, please at http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Archetype+licensing+-+the+case+for+CC-BY-SA?focusedCommentId=25985025#comment-25985025 As Erik has suggested it would be difficult to see how we could set up a formal vote under current arrangements but after a bit more discussion, an informal poll might be interesting and informative to the interim Board, though not binding. I feel things are definitely moving in the right direction and I can assure everyone that this subject is really being looked at with fresh eyes by myself and others on the interim Board. Bear with us a little longer while we get to grips with all of the options!! Regards, Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office +44 (0)1536 414 994 fax +44 (0)1536 516317 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org On 20 September 2011 15:49, Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote: On 20/09/2011 11:28, Erik Sundvall wrote: Hi! Shinji might be correct in that we had enough discussion about licensing (even though I think some of the questions asked for years have been avoided rather than answered), but IF it is time to vote then the alternatives 1-4 and the place (clinical list) for the vote are highly questionable. I also question the wisdom of letting Sam alone decide this potential voting procedure. It is also questionable what value a vote by anybody else than the board would mean, there is no formal community process in place in openEHR yet, the board is the only formal power. Some issue?details: a) I don't think it is fair move the place?to discuss the issue several times. By moving the place of discussion away from the places were arguments and counter arguments are already visible does not lead to a less heated discussion, rather it leads to repetitions in order to ensure that the arguments and unanswered questions are visible where the action is. Is the move because you fear the visibility of counter arguments and unanswered questions or is there some other understandable reason? First we had list discussions on the technical list Then we were asked to use a first wikipage including wikipage comments:?http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal?(OK move?since?this is neither purely technical or clinical) Then a second wikipage including wikipage comments:?http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Archetype+licensing+-+the+case+for+CC-BY-SA?(Questionable split/move) just to clarify: the point of doing this was to have a known place where the actual Transition proposal was posted and described in detail, as opposed to various informal 'proposals' / discussions so far. Remember, what we are discussing is what is in the Transition white paper, and if the discussion changes the white paper, then that needs to be recorded as well. It does mean some repetition unfortunately, but we need to encapsulate the discussion about the Transition document properly. - thomas ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
