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 >
