> *Controlling Conformance*: CC-0 just means 'public domain', no copyright. > How do you exert any kind of control (which you mention) over the > conformance not being messed with? >
The point of a trademark is that you can control what the name means. We say that we define what conformance to "FHIR" means. We expect that conformance will be messed with - that's just how it works. But no one else is allowed to say what it means to be "conformant to FHIR" because hl7 owns that trademark Also, we don't assert any rights around copying, but that doesn't mean that hl7 isn't the recognised author. *Copyright*: I don't see any harm in having a copyright notice if the > original author(ity) demands it, e.g. Nehta is like this. Copyright is kind > of useless in the land of software and formal models anyway, it's the > licence that counts. > Well, the way I understand it, with FHIR now, someone can asset a copyright on a derived work, but they could not effectively enforce copyright provisions on the content they include from the FHIR spec. There might not be much left... > > *Attribution*: Current thinking has been that if archetypes are > copyrighted to whomever, the licence-to-use would require attribution, > which just means listing authors. I think the value here is that artefact > users know that wide consultation and expertise went into the artefact. > I don't think there's any relationship between attribution and copyright. We could choose to attribute if we wanted to. Actually, we do it at the spec level: http://hl7.org/implement/standards/fhir/credits.html#credits > > Would't that 'contributors' list disappear under the new FHIR approach? > No, they're still the contributors. Grahame > -- ----- http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame at healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141003/9c241e12/attachment.html>
