Hi! > As far as I'm aware the above has become openEHR foundation policy as of > January 1st 2010. I have to admit that these changes in the IP status can't > be found on the openEHR homepage at this moment. Can somebody please place > the renewed 'Statement on Copyright and Licensing of Archetypes' at a > prominent place at the openEHR website.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 23:34, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > yes that needs to be done ASAP. I had forgotten about the Jan 1st condition. And _please_ make them CC-BY _not_ CC-BY-SA! I still have not heard any well grounded non-confused good arguments why SA would help the openEHR hosted collection of archetypes more than it would hurt it. When it comes to software it's tricky enough to know what share-alike (SA) means when "linking" or "using" code that is LGPL, MPL etc in a closed source system. It works somewhat well because there is a fairly common understanding of the difference between calling a method in a class and on the other hand copying, inheriting from or modifying a class. We don't want the techno-juridical mess of trying to figure out what SA means e.g. in the context of building archetype-based GUI-stubs, forms etc. in proprietary systems. Companies want to avoid risk. SA-archetypes would be a risk in this context until proven in court not to be (courts in every country where the company is working). That risks setting back trust in openEHR a couple of years. (And no Sam, SA won't protect anything from stupid patenting claims, the possibility of showing well published prior art will though...) Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 (Mail & tel. recently changed, so please update your contact lists.)
