Bert,
I don't think there is any reason for panic, quite the opposite. The
2-line summary of the situation is:
* everything is already open under either recognised licenses,
copyright, etc, apart from archetypes, which don't have a proper
license yet (but we treat them as being 100% open & free artefacts)
* In the future, we want to improve the copyright covering the
specifications to be a bit more standard, and designate a VERY
open license for archetypes & templates.
The recent debate is really about which of the CC licenses to use for
archetypes and templates.
openEHR is already about as open s you can get, and it is going to be
even more so soon. I think this will remove any doubts and help all
users and implementers.
- thomas beale
On 03/06/2010 18:25, info wrote:
> To make this clear for implementers, this kind of messages can cause
> panic, because people do not understand, they really mess things up
> all the time. I have a half day job explaining license issues to
> people, and I am only a programmer (maybe that is why it takes so much
> time)
> -------------------------
> Let's try my interpretation, excuse my third language English
>
> I think, anyone who reads the specifications, and thinks, I can do
> that on my own, in programming language XYZ, he will not get into trouble.
> Because, there may be copyright on the specifications, but they are
> not patented (thus, no protection on the ideas behind the specifications)
>
> Anyone who uses sourcecode (an implementation from someone else), has
> to comply to the conditions which are connected to that sourcecode,
> thus act accordingly.
>
> I think that I am right, or is there any objection to this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Bert
> *
> *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100603/0bb1dd5f/attachment.html>
