Tim Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Further to this, the use of the GPL, LGPL and Mozilla licenses to cover openEHR archetype definitions - if they are in fact the licenses which cover them, in contradiction to Thomas' previous statement - then such use becomes quite problematic because archetype definitions in the form of ADL files are clearly not software, and all three of those licenses are written to cover software, and thus their intrepretation becomes tricky with respect to archetype definition files. For example, all three licenses refer to "larger works", or "work as a whole" - what does this mean in the context of an openEHR archetype definition used (and needed) to store and query confidential medical data stored in an openEHR system? I would submit that it is highly desirable that openEHR archetypes are released under a license which provides for strong "copyleft" protection i.e. others are free to copy, redistribute and modify the archetype definitions, but cannot re-issue them (or parts of them) under more restrictive licenses - thus preventing them from becoming "proprietary" and being used to lock-in anyone's data. The GFDL (GNU Free Documatation License) - see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt - might be a better choice in order to provide such copyleft protection to archetype definitions, but even it is not quite right. As I said, I really think that the openEHR Foundation needs to engage a lawyer who is expert in open source licensing matters (I have suggested one) in order to resolve and clarify these archetype licensing issues, and as soon as possible, else it is quite possible that we will see openEHR archetypes popping up in closed source, proprietary openEHR-based systems , licensed in such a way that they lock in users' data. And that would be a shame. Apologies in advance if Thomas or others consider s boring and/or non-constructive, but personally I think it matters a lot. Tim C
