Hi All, I think many of us, including myself, get lost as we read all those licenses and the ways of the fine wording; thus will not be able to comment effectively. The wiki page listing the requirements/principles for licensing schemes was an extremely useful approach with that regard and I suggest we should all have a second and more careful look. I suspect they haven't been discussed enough and perhaps not addressing the issues being brought about now. Once we openly discuss and agree on these then (at the Board's discretion) it is up to the legal experts and the few knowledgeable people among us to verify if any of the proposed licensing schemes fulfil these requirements. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to determine some use cases in addition to these requirements for better understandability.
Cheers, -koray From: openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Erik Sundvall Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 10:16 p.m. To: For openEHR clinical discussions; For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: [openEHR-announce] Message from the Board - openEHR Intellectual Property Hi David and others! I have added a section for summaries of discussions to the bottom of the page at http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal The current version of the text is also included below: Summary of views by Erik Sundvall (preferring CC-BY) There has been mail discussions on (and off) the mailinglists regarding what license to use for content models (exemplified above by openEHR.org archetypes, templates, archetype-based queries).The concrete suggestion from the openEHR foundation board is tu use CC-BY-SA with some homegrown additions. In my view the argument right now boils down to: * The main difference between CC-BY and CC-BY-SA is that CC-BY-SA in addition to the CC-BY also adds the requirement that derived works that are distributed must be distributed under an open license. The board now for some strange reason wants to use CC-BY-SA with a loosely formulated addition that derived works "do not have to be openly distributed". I have not heard any reasonable motivation what this would gain compared to just using CC-BY from the beginning. In open source communities homegrown additions to (or modifications of) licenses are known to be potential problem sources. CC-BY and CC-BY-SA (without homegrown additions) have been scrutinized by lawyers and have been translated and developed to fit legislation in many countries, it would take a lot of work to do the same with a homegrown addition to CC-BY-SA - and if there is no well motivated gain, then why not just use CC-BY in the first place? Some previous mailing list posts regarding this, commented from Erik's perspective: * January 2006 - The importance of having very well understood open licenses for archetypes was very well formulated by Tim Churches http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg01774.html * 1 September 2009 - David Mon?r starts an interesting thread: http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg04573.html Some excerpts from the discussion thread follow: * Tim Cook says the board should make a statement: http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg04577.html * Erik Sundvall discusses hard-to-interpret situations if using SA and quotes himself from off-list discussions from 2008: http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg04579.html * Sam Heard says -SA will "ensure that specialised or adapted archetypes based on openEHR archetypes remain freely available" and that other derived works won't be a big issuehttp://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg04622.html * Richard Dixon Hughes (a lawyer) says and exemplifies that derived works might be a tricky area http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg04623.html * Erik Sundvall responds to Sam Heard, especially regarding the expressed fear of modified redistribution of archetypes: http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg04624.html * Sam Heard responds to Erik Sundvall http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg04628.html * Thomas Beale says copyright does not always have to be assigned to openEHR http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg04632.html * Erik Sundvall finds Sam Heard's reasoning changing and contradictory, asks for clarification and responds to Sam's other points http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg04631.html * Sam Heard explains parts of his thought process and then says things like "Your arguments for not using SA are well put" and "BY alone is clearly a choice, SA adds a major condition that we need to consider carefully." http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg04639.html * The continued discussion then shifts focus away from Archetype licensing (to CKM and other things). * February 2010 - Erik repeats his fears that SA will hurt trust in openEHR: http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg04892.html and a reply where Tom B finds the basic argument solidhttp://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg04893.html The fact that objections to using CC-BY-SA were openly declared on the mailing lists, but not properly answered before the decision by the board to adopt CC-BY-SA, makes me wonder how the decisions in the board are made with respect to response from the community. In a (mostly off-list) mail debate from August 2008 and in the (on-list) debate from September 2009 (referenced above) I sensed that Sam Heard (who is part of the board<http://www.openehr.org/about/bod.html>) had some strong undefined feeling that CC-BY-SA would be more beneficial top the openEHR community, but he could not make a strong case for it when confronted. Is the case that Sam or somebody else has later presented strong arguments to the board that could not and will not be presented to the community in the mailinglists or on the wiki? If arguments can not be presented openly, then the risk increases that people suspect the board or some of its members to have hidden agendas, and that is a bad thing for an open project like openEHR. Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se<mailto:erik.sundvall at liu.se> http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 15:40, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com<mailto:thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>> wrote: > > Posted on behalf of Professor David Ingram, chair of the board of the > openEHR Foundation: > > Since initiating the consultation on the principles governing present > and future licensing of openEHR IP (see wiki page > http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal), > we have had positive responses, expressed on a personal basis. As the > Board needs to begin to act on these proposals, from the end of June, > this is a request to hear from anyone in the community who may be > harbouring doubts or concerns about the direction of travel we have laid > out, or wishes to offer alternative proposals. This can be by private > communication to me, as chair of the openEHR Foundation Board, or by > contribution to the openEHR lists and/or the above wiki page . We would > be happy to receive messages of support as well, of course. > > - David Ingram > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-announce mailing list > openEHR-announce at openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-announce at openehr.org> > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-announce > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100603/a080491c/attachment.html>
