I understand the purpose of the ND, and I think, as you, that it is
important. and all standards that are not registered by an SDO have this
problem. So it is a commonly occurring problem, that is why Creative
Commons has an answer for that. I think that works allright. I see no
problem in the current situation.
But I understand you, and some others feel OpenEHR being attacked, that
is why you want another solution.
You suggested a few, I suggested one. You can also consult a specialized
lawyer.
Maybe you are solving a non existing problem.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
Bert
On 07-09-15 04:02, Thomas Beale wrote:
ND = No Derivatives and is the Creative Commons equivalent of what W3C
has in their licence
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/doc-license>. It's just
designed to prevent anyone republishing altered versions of the
specifications /as the original specifications /- in other words
forked publishing, which would create real problems for obvious reasons.
Probably we do want to allow the forking of the specifications into
some new specifications, i.e. with new names and identifiers, that
clearly cannot confused with the originals, and the ND provision
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/>I believe would
prevent this.
I am not sure what the best replacement is though - it's quite
important that a specification with the title 'openEHR EHR Information
Model' and version xyz really is only one document, and that no
modified versions of that can masquerade as that thing.
W3C achieve this with a custom copyright notice (see above). We
probably want a different approach. I don't personally have time to
research this but ideally we want a licence that does the following
for the specifications:
* requires attribution with all replublishing, sharing
* prevents republishing in altered form with same document title,
id, and also publisher i.e. 'openEHR'
* but allows normal forking into artefacts that are clearly different
- thomas
On 07/09/2015 06:48, Bert Verhees wrote:
The ND on the specs, there must be a kind of protection. Brand
protection could work, but must be registered in all countries of the
world.
You see the same problem at RFC's, they solved it like this, you
cannot change them and publish them under the same name.
In the case of RFC a changed version gets a new number.
I don't know what it takes to make an RFC of something and if it
would be appropriate for OpenEHR.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
