License and copyright of archetypes
An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20091024/e784c5c9/attachment.html -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OceanC_small.png Type: image/png Size: 4972 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20091024/e784c5c9/attachment.png
License and copyright of archetypes
Hi Sam and Sebastian! On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 03:45, Sam Heard sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com wrote: [...] I was taken by some of the issues that Richard raised [...] the possibility of people claiming that a particular template was their design [...] SA seems to offer some protection for that scenario. You still have not explained how/why you mean that CC-BY-SA offers better protection against this than just CC-BY. Regarding CKM. I sense that you would prefer it was open source No, I don't have the view that the CKM or anything else used by the foundation necessarily needs to be open source. But I do think that openEHR is about open specifications and open content though, and that it is very important that work/discussions/experiences produced by the community are openly accessible so that they can be reused in many environments and that they can survive tool changes and to avoid vendor lock-in. We chose to use a closed source asset management engine from a small company in Australia to get something working and I believe our team, led by Sebastian, Heather and Ian, have created something wonderful. Yes the CKM is an important tooI and it was important to get something like this up and running quickly, the current CKM is a great contribution. I am also aware of some of your (Ocean Informatics') reasons for basing the CKM on a commercial product and releasing it as a commercial tool (although available for free to the foundation I assume), I discussed this with Sebastian and others during and after MIE2008. I'm not quite sure if your intention was to keep the entire solution as closed source or if you just wanted/needed to protect the calls made to the underlying commercial package. (Is it http://www.arcitecta.com/mediaflux/ ?) Anyway, the reasons may be any, the most important thing is not in this case the software licence, but the open availability of the clinical content, discussions, reviews etc. (A drawback with the current situation though is that it's hard for others than Ocean Informatics employees to contribute with code/feature improvements or plugins to the de facto standard archetype management tool (CKM) used by and promoted by the foundation. The fact that such contributions would go in to a closed commercial product also makes such contributions less likely.) It might be that there will be open source tools that do this job in the future but I suspect these will flourish in the commercial sector for the time being If the CKM content is openly available and the data formats are open, then there is a chance that open source products (or other competing closed source products) can be used in the future. If not, then we actually have a vendor lock in. The same goes for all other software packages used by the openEHR foundation, the wiki, version management, issue tracker, specification editing tools etc. As long as there is a working, well documented way out that allows the community contributions to be exported without too much hassle, then I believe most people will accept the use of closed source solutions in a setting like openEHRs. This is also a risk management issue, a company behind a closed source product can disappear, run out of resources or simply discontinue support for a product. If I was heading a national program (or an international foundation) considering to use the CKM for important work, then I'd make sure that I either had possibilities and rights to modify to the source code via some agreement, or that there were well documented complete export facilities (and I'd set up a routine to backup the exports) before investing too much time/resources in CKM-based work. On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 08:34, Sebastian Garde sebastian.garde at oceaninformatics.com wrote: The web service interface of CKM is described here: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/healthmod/CKM+Webservices This is a great start, thanks for documenting and announcing it! If you are missing something let me know or raise a Jira issue in CKM: About/Suggest new feature (when logged in). 1. I assume that developer resources are limited and that it would be wiser to spend time on improving CKM features than to make the perfect machine-to-machine interface for every possible content item in the CKM. Thus in order to quickly get the complete export/backup feature discussed above, then maybe a documented, machine readable complete daily CKM database dump in the form of files on a public webserver will probably do the job. (I guess excluding the stored user password hashes might be wise for security reasons though :-) at least until you start using openID and can avoid storing passwords at all...) 2a. Why is reading of the archetype discussions and reviews hidden to people not logged in? When e.g. the discussion thread Generic name of medication recently moved from the mailing-list to the CKM, then at the same time it moved from public space to private space, the continued discussion is
License and copyright of archetypes
Hi Erik, On the licensing front, I was taken by some of the issues that Richard raised and the concern I was expressing was the possibility of people claiming that a particular template was their design - a group of archetypes and then creating a form based on that. This looked particularly problematic for clinical users from my perspective. SA seems to offer some protection for that scenario. I think you are focussing of the users in the traditional software sense (a very important group if you want uptake) and not the clinicians and other expert users who create the archetypes and who I want to be the leaders in both creation and use. Your arguments for not using SA are well put. I do not want to force people to use openEHR Foundation archetypes - we all want the best ones to be out there in use. If, as you say, a commercial effort created the best set and everyone started using it, then that will be the interoperability space. At the moment archetypes are freely available. The idea here is to get the best possible license to help the develop the sort of community activity that is what we want to see. BY alone is clearly a choice, SA adds a major condition that we need to consider carefully. Thanks for your challenging response. Regarding CKM. I sense that you would prefer it was open source and that is where I started as well. Ocean worked on that basis with Central Queensland University for 3 years and had an academic team using the usual stack (mySQL, Apache etc) and just couldn't get there. We chose to use a closed source asset management engine from a small company in Australia to get something working and I believe our team, led by Sebastian, Heather and Ian, have created something wonderful. It might be that there will be open source tools that do this job in the future but I suspect these will flourish in the commercial sector for the time being (Arcitecta's clients are largely research institutes and universities!). It would be good to have a list of interfaces for CKM people would like from this service. You can look in the Archetype Editor for some specs immediately as this pulls web-based files from CKM. I will ask Sebastian to put the interfaces on the openEHR wiki. The things you can do already: 1. Pull down all the archetypes in a zip file. 2. Get a list of archetypes as a web service and download any you want. Any refinements of the interface people would like to have, put it on the list or send it to Sebastian. The platform CKM is running on is Linux and Java (Could be Windows Server) with this component in the middle. We should have a plug-in framework going shortly as this is basically how the underlying engine operates anyway. Cheers, Sam -Original Message- From: openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-clinical- bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Erik Sundvall Sent: Tuesday, 13 October 2009 8:43 PM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Cc: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: License and copyright of archetypes Hi Sam! On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:04, Sam Heard sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com wrote: Richard has raised the issue of people copyrighting forms and other derived works based on archetypes and perhaps claiming these cannot be copied. This seems to be an argument in favour of SA... I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. 1. It seems to me that previously when you argued for Share Alike (SA) you said that derivative works (like GUIs) that were not archetypes should not be seen by the foundation as derivative works covered by the SA-requirement. (It still remains to be detailed if/how such a position by the foundation should be formalised.) 2. Now it sounds like you say that forms based on archetypes really should be considered derivative works and thus need to be released under SA too. Somehow you seem confident that this would solve more potential copyright issues than it would create. Don't you find the views 1 2 conflicting? Could you also detail how SA (in 2 above) would stop copy-fights in this setting, is it by disallowing all archetype based systems that are not published under a SA-license, leaving only open source solutions as permitted to use openEHR-hosted archetypes? (Since I like to use and create open source I would find this interesting, but I doubt it would be realistic in today's health care setting :-)) If you select CC-BY you can still require that any specialised or adapted archetypes _hosted_ by openEHR should be free under CC-BY. Well, what if the specialised archetype is hosted in Brazil for instance. What if you receive data from there? I assume you don't have a certain issue with projects based in Brazil (or do you?) and that you instead mean something like: What if you receive data from a stupid organisation that wants to share data with you and does not understand that they need to release the related archetypes under a licence
License and copyright of archetypes
Sam Heard wrote: Regarding CKM. I sense that you would prefer it was open source and that is where I started as well. Ocean worked on that basis with Central Queensland University for 3 years and had an academic team using the usual stack (mySQL, Apache etc) and just couldn't get there. We chose to use a closed source asset management engine from a small company in Australia to get something working and I believe our team, led by Sebastian, Heather and Ian, have created something wonderful. It might be that there will be open source tools that do this job in the future but I suspect these will flourish in the commercial sector for the time being (Arcitecta's clients are largely research institutes and universities!). It would be good to have a list of interfaces for CKM people would like from this service. You can look in the Archetype Editor for some specs immediately as this pulls web-based files from CKM. I will ask Sebastian to put the interfaces on the openEHR wiki. The things you can do already: 1. Pull down all the archetypes in a zip file. 2. Get a list of archetypes as a web service and download any you want. Any refinements of the interface people would like to have, put it on the list or send it to Sebastian Hi Eric and all, The web service interface of CKM is described here: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/healthmod/CKM+Webservices If you are missing something let me know or raise a Jira issue in CKM: About/Suggest new feature (when logged in). In addition to what Sam has mentioned, from the CKM GUI you can also get selected classes of archetypes, archetypes that have been created or modified after a certain date, etc. You can also get an OWL ontology of all archetypes and their classifications (e.g. Health Domain = Adolescent Health, Profession = Nurse, ...). Cheers Sebastian
License and copyright of archetypes
Hi Sam! On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:04, Sam Heard sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com wrote: Richard has raised the issue of people copyrighting forms and other derived works based on archetypes and perhaps claiming these cannot be copied. This seems to be an argument in favour of SA... I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. 1. It seems to me that previously when you argued for Share Alike (SA) you said that derivative works (like GUIs) that were not archetypes should not be seen by the foundation as derivative works covered by the SA-requirement. (It still remains to be detailed if/how such a position by the foundation should be formalised.) 2. Now it sounds like you say that forms based on archetypes really should be considered derivative works and thus need to be released under SA too. Somehow you seem confident that this would solve more potential copyright issues than it would create. Don't you find the views 1 2 conflicting? Could you also detail how SA (in 2 above) would stop copy-fights in this setting, is it by disallowing all archetype based systems that are not published under a SA-license, leaving only open source solutions as permitted to use openEHR-hosted archetypes? (Since I like to use and create open source I would find this interesting, but I doubt it would be realistic in today's health care setting :-)) If you select CC-BY you can still require that any specialised or adapted archetypes _hosted_ by openEHR should be free under CC-BY. Well, what if the specialised archetype is hosted in Brazil for instance. What if you receive data from there? I assume you don't have a certain issue with projects based in Brazil (or do you?) and that you instead mean something like: What if you receive data from a stupid organisation that wants to share data with you and does not understand that they need to release the related archetypes under a licence that allows you to use the related archetypes too? The above situation may occur no matter what what licence the openEHR-hosted archetypes use (as long as openEHR does have a global monopoly on archetype creation). The way to cure this is not by SA, but by trying to educate stupid organisations on matters of reality. [Now jumping back to a previous part of the discussion...] On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:04, Sam Heard sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com wrote: Perhaps I could state what I personally see as the ideal state of archetypes: 1) That there is a community commitment to develop a shared set of archetypes as well as detailed and summary display scripts (including transforms to and from HL7 CDA, v2, CCR etc) which are freely available. This I believe is a goal for most of us involved in openEHR. It is the rules regarding the way to the goal that we are discussing. I question the value of SA as a means for this purpose and I think that a community commitment will be based on other things. If you don't have formal powers to force organisations to use your archetypes, and you don't have that since the openEHR specifications are OPEN, then you need to be as attractive as possible by other means (e.g. by having the most interesting and active community). Earlier I have stated why I think SA might make you less attractive and that it might provide a good starting ground for a competing non-SA community. A licence was not the tool to check integrity of archetypes (instead digital signing etc was). Likewise I doubt that a SA-licence would be the right tool to fight fragmentation of efforts. 2) That these archetypes can be specialised for local use but that these specialisations, should they be published, remain freely available to others and under copyright of the openEHR Foundation so that other people can specialise them further if appropriate. Whether the copyright of a CC-BY licenced archetype is assigned to openEHR or somebody else is irrelevant for this purpose. Anybody is free to build anything from a CC-BY work (including archetype specialisations) the same goes for a CC-BY-SA provided you release the new work as CC-BY-SA. 4) That repositories for archetypes are federated to allow searching and that specialisation is possible for any one searching these without seeking permission from anyone (ie federated CKMs, national etc, use openEHR copyright and licenses). Again, the copyright assignment is not an issue if you go for CC-BY. A well specified way/interface to query each others repositories (machine-to-machine, not GUI) would be a good thing here though. How do you for example query Ocean Informatics closed-source proprietary CKM (used by openEHR) from another program? Is there a specification published? Being able to extract the entire content contributed by the community would raise the credibility of the currently employed solution. 5) That no one using archetypes could be accused of copying someone else's forms or screen rendering based on archetypes. We could wish for this no matter what
License and copyright of archetypes
An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20091013/20a57b41/attachment.html
License and copyright of archetypes
Hi Erik, I see your point and agree. My call for the -SA extension was based on the idea of reciprocity. So let's go for CC-BY. Cheers, Stef (I sended this reaction earlier but for an unknown reason only to Eric. So now for the whole group. Although I still believe in the idea of reciprocity and would like to advocate for it, a license shouldn't become a hindrance for the broad usage of openEHR archetypes and/or a 'paper tiger' as we call it in the Netherlands: don't create rules which you can't (or don't want to) follow up) Op 14 sep 2009, om 12:14 heeft Erik Sundvall het volgende geschreven: Requiring SA in addition to BY might add value or it might mostly add complications and hard-to-interpet situations regarding what a derivative work is. Is data entered using the archetype a derivative work? Is a template or screen-form based on the archetype a derivative work? Is a book using the archetype in an example a derivative work? A specialization of an archetype intended for top-secret medical research is most likely a derivative work, is that a problem or not? It is issues like these that get companies uneasy regarding using things with SA-licencing-schemes (such as GPL) in some situations. Another question is if SA is necessary in an openEHR-based health record exchange system. If you want to exchange archetyped data you're probably in most cases requested to supply the used archetype too anyway.
License and copyright of archetypes
at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of David Moner Sent: Tuesday, 1 September 2009 9:25 PM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Cc: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: License and copyright of archetypes Ok, that page didn't appear to me because I was not logged in the wiki when I made the search :-) It is good to see thar there are discussed more or less the same points as in my mail. Best regards, David 2009/9/1 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com There is now a page for discussing this - http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Archetypes+-+Copyright+and+Licensing - thomas beale David Moner wrote: Dear all, These days I have been thinking about the legal issues involving the use of existing archetypes. I have seen that openEHR archetypes available on the Clinical Knowledge Manager are all Copyright (c) 200X openEHR Foundation. But, what does this exactly implies? I can download them freely, but can I use them in a commercial environment? Must I make public specialized archetypes or adaptations from them? Obviously, I is not me but anybody :-) I have searched the openEHR page and wiki but I have not found anything about this topic, just a point in the copyright notice of the specifications linking to the non-existing page http://www.openehr.org/free_commercial_use.htm I think it would be good to start a discussion about licensing. I'm not talking about open source implementations, but about the archetype artifacts that anyone can develop. A first approach that can be made is the use of a Creative Common license. I think that one of them can fit the interests of the openEHR community. In my opinion, the main aspects that a license for archetypes must cover are: - To maintain the attribution to the original author (the openEHR Foundation or whoever) - To allow a commercial use of archetypes (like or not, health is a business) - To allow modifications and derivations of the archetype. - On behalf of the openEHR community, the new derived archetypes should be made public with the same conditions. This is arguable and could be eliminated. As I said, one of the Creative Commons licenses covers all this properties. It is the Attribution Share Alike license: This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use. http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses Finally, this leads to a secondary point. Maybe, the copyright attribute of an archetype should be renamed to license to best fit the conditions of usage of archetypes. What's your opinion? -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical -- Thomas Beale Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics Chair Architectural Review Board, openEHR Foundation Honorary Research Fellow, University College London Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
License and copyright of archetypes
We can have all the fun and interesting discussions we want. What we need is a statement from the Board of Directors. I do not know what the laws in England require, but in most countries the BoD of organizations have to produce minutes of at least annual meetings to their membership. I can't recall ever seeing anything to that effect. Either way, the statement on the page at: http://www.openehr.org/about/bod.html says: The openEHR Board oversees the proper functioning of the openEHR Foundation with respect to its charter and status as a not-for-profit organisation. I believe that this issue falls under the concepts of proper functioning since the IP rights of donated artifacts are at stake here. IMHO; the BoD needs to make a firm statement so that anyone donating time to the openEHR Foundation knows what they are donating to. --Tim On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 11:16 +0200, Erik Sundvall wrote: Hi! Sam, I remember we've had similar discussions earlier both on- and off-list, and I believe the result was that CC-BY was clearly the least encumbering and most suitable option for archetype licensing. When it comes to copyright I think you might have misunderstood some things and David's interpretation below seems more correct. There is no conflict between Copyright and CC-licences. Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se (previously erisu at imt.liu.se) http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/Tel: +46-13-227579 On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:59, David Monerdamoca at gmail.com wrote: I'm not an expert at all about licenses (and in fact, the more I read about them, the less I understand :-) As far as I know, CC licenses are in fact a kind of copyright clauses. The copyright we all know is that of all rights reserved. This includes the attribution right, the use right, the copy right, the distribution right and all that you can imagine. A CC license always maintains the attribution right but allows to transfer some other rights if you wish: distribution, modification and commercialization. So, I understand that the use of copyright + CC is something like some rights reserved (which are all those not covered by the CC). For example, one of those reserved rights is the ability of the author to re-license his work or a new version of it. As you say, the best solution seems to be having both to assure the right of the authors and to show clearly how archetypes can be used (those from the CKM or any other public archetype repository). As I said in my previous mail, this will require to add a license field to the archetype description section to include it. Best regards, David 2009/9/9 Sam Heard sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com Thanks for this David. I have had a look at this license some years ago and felt it was the best. It does have a proviso: Waiver ? Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. I think that the copyright is still a fundamental issue here and if we do not hold the copyright in some unencumbered manner then the license is not enough. Do you think both is the best solution (copyright and CC ? Attribution-Share Alike) ? Cheers, Sam From: openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of David Moner Sent: Tuesday, 1 September 2009 9:25 PM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Cc: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: License and copyright of archetypes Ok, that page didn't appear to me because I was not logged in the wiki when I made the search :-) It is good to see thar there are discussed more or less the same points as in my mail. Best regards, David 2009/9/1 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com There is now a page for discussing this - http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Archetypes+-+Copyright+and+Licensing - thomas beale David Moner wrote: Dear all, These days I have been thinking about the legal issues involving the use of existing archetypes. I have seen that openEHR archetypes available on the Clinical Knowledge Manager are all Copyright (c) 200X openEHR Foundation. But, what does this exactly implies? I can download them freely, but can I use them in a commercial environment? Must I make public specialized archetypes or adaptations from them? Obviously, I is not me but anybody :-) I have searched the openEHR page and wiki but I have not found anything about this topic, just a point in the copyright notice of the specifications linking to the non-existing page http://www.openehr.org/free_commercial_use.htm I think it would be good to start a discussion about licensing. I'm not talking about open source implementations, but about the archetype artifacts that anyone can develop. A first approach that can be made is the use of a Creative Common license
License and copyright of archetypes
Dear all, These days I have been thinking about the legal issues involving the use of existing archetypes. I have seen that openEHR archetypes available on the Clinical Knowledge Manager are all Copyright (c) 200X openEHR Foundation. But, what does this exactly implies? I can download them freely, but can I use them in a commercial environment? Must I make public specialized archetypes or adaptations from them? Obviously, I is not me but anybody :-) I have searched the openEHR page and wiki but I have not found anything about this topic, just a point in the copyright notice of the specifications linking to the non-existing page http://www.openehr.org/free_commercial_use.htm I think it would be good to start a discussion about licensing. I'm not talking about open source implementations, but about the archetype artifacts that anyone can develop. A first approach that can be made is the use of a Creative Common license. I think that one of them can fit the interests of the openEHR community. In my opinion, the main aspects that a license for archetypes must cover are: - To maintain the attribution to the original author (the openEHR Foundation or whoever) - To allow a commercial use of archetypes (like or not, health is a business) - To allow modifications and derivations of the archetype. - On behalf of the openEHR community, the new derived archetypes should be made public with the same conditions. This is arguable and could be eliminated. As I said, one of the Creative Commons licenses covers all this properties. It is the Attribution Share Alike license: This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use. http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses Finally, this leads to a secondary point. Maybe, the copyright attribute of an archetype should be renamed to license to best fit the conditions of usage of archetypes. What's your opinion? -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090901/184ad8fa/attachment.html
License and copyright of archetypes
An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090901/54dc6e8b/attachment.html -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OceanC_small.png Type: image/png Size: 4972 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090901/54dc6e8b/attachment.png
License and copyright of archetypes
Ok, that page didn't appear to me because I was not logged in the wiki when I made the search :-) It is good to see thar there are discussed more or less the same points as in my mail. Best regards, David 2009/9/1 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com There is now a page for discussing this - http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Archetypes+-+Copyright+and+Licensing - thomas beale David Moner wrote: Dear all, These days I have been thinking about the legal issues involving the use of existing archetypes. I have seen that openEHR archetypes available on the Clinical Knowledge Manager are all Copyright (c) 200X openEHR Foundation. But, what does this exactly implies? I can download them freely, but can I use them in a commercial environment? Must I make public specialized archetypes or adaptations from them? Obviously, I is not me but anybody :-) I have searched the openEHR page and wiki but I have not found anything about this topic, just a point in the copyright notice of the specifications linking to the non-existing page http://www.openehr.org/free_commercial_use.htm I think it would be good to start a discussion about licensing. I'm not talking about open source implementations, but about the archetype artifacts that anyone can develop. A first approach that can be made is the use of a Creative Common license. I think that one of them can fit the interests of the openEHR community. In my opinion, the main aspects that a license for archetypes must cover are: - To maintain the attribution to the original author (the openEHR Foundation or whoever) - To allow a commercial use of archetypes (like or not, health is a business) - To allow modifications and derivations of the archetype. - On behalf of the openEHR community, the new derived archetypes should be made public with the same conditions. This is arguable and could be eliminated. As I said, one of the Creative Commons licenses covers all this properties. It is the Attribution Share Alike license: This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use. http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses Finally, this leads to a secondary point. Maybe, the copyright attribute of an archetype should be renamed to license to best fit the conditions of usage of archetypes. What's your opinion? -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -- ___ openEHR-clinical mailing listopenEHR-clinical at openehr.orghttp://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical -- *Thomas Beale Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informaticshttp://www.oceaninformatics.com/ * Chair Architectural Review Board, *open*EHR Foundationhttp://www.openehr.org/ Honorary Research Fellow, University College Londonhttp://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/ Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Societyhttp://www.bcs.org.uk/ * * ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090901/39e2c1f2/attachment.html -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OceanC_small.png Type: image/png Size: 4972 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090901/39e2c1f2/attachment.png
