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.
