Hi Diego,
I will bring this post to the attention of the Board for a more
authoritative response on the copyright / licensing question. These are
just my personal opinions for now though Heather, Sebastian, Silje and I
have discussed many of these issues so I can think they are probably
The current proposed AOM 2 meta-data can be seen here
http://www.openehr.org/releases/trunk/UML/#Diagrams___18_1_83e026d_1422971258847_792963_30335.
Notes:
* One thing we added due to CIMI, which we think is globally
applicable is 'conversion_details' in RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION.
-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On
Behalf Of Ian McNicoll
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 2:26 PM
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: Re: Licensing of specs and artifacts
Hi Diego,
I will bring this post to the attention of the Board for a more authoritative
response
*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
Thanks Silje, that you bring this very important subject under attention.
It was already under attention recently on a LinkedIn discussion, but I
am afraid it did not reach the right people.
I do agree with your point of view, so there is not much discussion,
there is only one small remark. I
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
Hahaha, it's good you always have LinkEHR in mind ;-)
By the way, this is certainly an old and recurring topic. I have checked
that there were already discussions back in 2009, so probably we are going
to repeat things already commented.
I will talk about artefacts (archetypes). The first thing
At the end of the day, I don't really care what licence is used for
these things in openEHR - maybe the community should just vote. The long
debates from the past are summarised here
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Archetype+licensing+-+the+case+for+CC-BY-SA
and here
2014-10-02 10:03 GMT+02:00 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com:
I think the key things to remember in resolving this are how the various
artefacts get used, which helps figure where 'adaptation' actually exists.
I can think of the following:
- archetype = template =
Thank you Grahame for sharing the HL7 FIHR licensing experience!
This actually changes the game!
Short version:
Whatever openEHR does will now be compared to what HL7 actually has allowed
for FIHR. If we with openEHR are less open than FIHR, then we?ll need to
defend that position somehow,
Hi everyone,
In light of the recent re-licensing of
FHIRhttp://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
11 matches
Mail list logo
