Thomas Beale wrote: > Tim Churches wrote: >> I think a more correct assertion would be that data without metadata are >> not very useful, and that is analogous to saying that medical data >> stored in an openEHR system are not useful without access to the >> archetype definition used to store them. Which is why I have been trying >> to elucidate the precise licensing of the openEHR archetype definitions. >> >> > The licensing on openEHR software is pretty clear and I imagine > uncontroversial - namely the Mozilla tri-license of GPL/LGPL/MPL. The > other licenses for use of documentary materials may or may not need > revision, and of course we are happy to take advice on this. The current > versions (http://www.openehr.org/about_openehr/t_licensing.htm) were > drafted by UCL's legal department, and possibly have an academic > flavour. They are also some years old now. If you want to criticise > these, go ahead, but please provide constructive criticism that we can > actually use.
Thomas, I provided fairly extensive, and I thought constructive, criticism on the licenses which you indicated (and which teh openEHR web site seems to suggest) apply to openEHR archetype definitions, which are not software. As far as I can divine, based on your previous statement and what it says on the Web site, openEHR archetypes are not licensed under the GPL/LGPL/Mozilla triple license, but rather under the openEHR-specific licenses discussed at length in previous posts to this list. Is that correct or incorrect. It does actually matter. Tim C
