"For information the link to the LinkedEhr discussion, I hope it works"
Of course, this should be: LinkedIN ;-) (sorry David) Best regards Bert Verhees On 01-10-14 17:02, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > In light of the recent re-licensing of FHIR > <http://www.healthintersections.com.au/?p=2248> using the Creative > Commons CC0 Public Domain Dedication as well as the discussion about > licensing at the 2014 openEHR Roadmap Meeting > <http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/September+2014+Roadmap+Meeting> > in Lillestr?m on September 16 and 17, I?d like to restart the > discussion on licensing of openEHR specifications and artefacts > (mainly archetypes, but also potentially templates and terminology sets). > > As of now, the specifications are licensed using the Creative Commons > Attribution No-Derivatives > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/> (CC-B-ND) license, > while the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/> (CC-BY-SA) is used > for artefacts. Several issues have been raised about this choice of > licences. Feel free to add to this list, I?m bound to have forgot some > issues: > > CC-BY-ND (for specs): > > ?Theoretically, a hostile takeover of the openEHR Foundation might > leave the openEHR specs dead, as with the CC-BY-ND only the copyright > holder (the Foundation) has the rights to modify them. A forkable > license like for instance CC-BY-SA would solve this issue. Global > registering of the openEHR trademark would keep any derivates to be > branded as ?openEHR?. > > CC-BY-SA (for artefacts): > > ?Commercial implementers might avoid using CC-BY-SA artefacts because > the license requires any /published/ modifications of the work to be > licensed using the same license. This might lead implementers to > believe the license would require them to license their entire > software product as CC-BY-SA. There are several examples of CC-BY-SA > works being used in copyrighted works, such as Wikipedia articles > being used in newspapers, but this is probably reliant on a benign > licensor, which any normal commercial company can?t rely 100% on. The > way I see it, this problem could be solved in one of two ways: > > oUse the CC-BY license, which retains the attribution clause, but > doesn?t require any derivative works to use the same license. This has > the disadvantage of enabling proprietary tweaking of archetypes, which > could potentially ruin interoperability. > > oRetain the CC-BY-SA license, but add an explicit clause that allows > all implementers to use artefacts in closed-source, proprietary > products with any license they like. Artefacts published by > themselves, as standalone archetypes, templates or terminology sets > would still be bound by the ShareAlike clause. This is supported by > Creative Commons via the CC+ <https://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCPlus> > protocol. > > I realise these issues will ultimately be decided by the board of the > openEHR Foundation, but if the community can come to some kind of > consensus on this issue I would hope it?d send them a strong signal. > > Kind regards, > *Silje Ljosland Bakke* > > Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes, National ICT Norway > Adviser, R&D dept, E-health section, Bergen Hospital Trust > > Tel. +47 40203298 > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141002/26c7bb0b/attachment-0001.html>
