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>
