We can have all the fun and interesting discussions we want. What we need is a statement from the Board of Directors. I do not know what the laws in England require, but in most countries the BoD of organizations have to produce minutes of at least annual meetings to their membership.
I can't recall ever seeing anything to that effect. Either way, the statement on the page at: http://www.openehr.org/about/bod.html says: "The openEHR Board oversees the proper functioning of the openEHR Foundation with respect to its charter and status as a not-for-profit organisation." I believe that this issue falls under the concepts of proper functioning since the IP rights of donated artifacts are at stake here. IMHO; the BoD needs to make a firm statement so that anyone donating time to the openEHR Foundation knows what they are donating to. --Tim On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 11:16 +0200, Erik Sundvall wrote: > Hi! > > Sam, I remember we've had similar discussions earlier both on- and > off-list, and I believe the result was that CC-BY was clearly the > least encumbering and most suitable option for archetype licensing. > > When it comes to copyright I think you might have misunderstood some > things and David's interpretation below seems more correct. There is > no conflict between Copyright and CC-licences. > > Best regards, > Erik Sundvall > erik.sundvall at liu.se (previously erisu at imt.liu.se) > http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-227579 > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:59, David Moner<damoca at gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm not an expert at all about licenses (and in fact, the more I read about > > them, the less I understand :-) > > > > As far as I know, CC licenses are in fact a kind of "copyright clauses". The > > copyright we all know is that of "all rights reserved". This includes the > > attribution right, the use right, the copy right, the distribution right and > > all that you can imagine. A CC license always maintains the attribution > > right but allows to transfer some other rights if you wish: distribution, > > modification and commercialization. So, I understand that the use of > > copyright + CC is something like "some rights reserved" (which are all those > > not covered by the CC). For example, one of those reserved rights is the > > ability of the author to re-license his work or a new version of it. > > > > As you say, the best solution seems to be having both to assure the right of > > the authors and to show clearly how archetypes can be used (those from the > > CKM or any other public archetype repository). As I said in my previous > > mail, this will require to add a "license" field to the archetype > > description section to include it. > > > > Best regards, > > David > > > > 2009/9/9 Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> > >> > >> Thanks for this David. I have had a look at this license some years ago > >> and felt it was the best. It does have a proviso: > >> > >> > >> > >> Waiver ? Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission > >> from the copyright holder. > >> > >> > >> > >> I think that the copyright is still a fundamental issue here and if we do > >> not hold the copyright in some unencumbered manner then the license is not > >> enough. > >> > >> > >> > >> Do you think both is the best solution (copyright and CC ? > >> Attribution-Share Alike) ? > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers, Sam > >> > >> > >> > >> From: openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org > >> [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of David Moner > >> Sent: Tuesday, 1 September 2009 9:25 PM > >> To: For openEHR clinical discussions > >> Cc: For openEHR technical discussions > >> Subject: Re: License and copyright of archetypes > >> > >> > >> > >> Ok, that page didn't appear to me because I was not logged in the wiki > >> when I made the search :-) > >> > >> It is good to see thar there are discussed more or less the same points as > >> in my mail. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> David > >> > >> 2009/9/1 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > >> > >> There is now a page for discussing this - > >> http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Archetypes+-+Copyright+and+Licensing > >> > >> - thomas beale > >> > >> David Moner wrote: > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> These days I have been thinking about the legal issues involving the use > >> of existing archetypes. I have seen that openEHR archetypes available on > >> the > >> Clinical Knowledge Manager are all "Copyright (c) 200X openEHR Foundation". > >> But, what does this exactly implies? I can download them freely, but can I > >> use them in a commercial environment? Must I make public specialized > >> archetypes or adaptations from them? Obviously, "I" is not me but anybody > >> :-) > >> > >> I have searched the openEHR page and wiki but I have not found anything > >> about this topic, just a point in the copyright notice of the > >> specifications > >> linking to the non-existing page > >> http://www.openehr.org/free_commercial_use.htm > >> > >> I think it would be good to start a discussion about licensing. I'm not > >> talking about open source implementations, but about the archetype > >> artifacts > >> that anyone can develop. A first approach that can be made is the use of a > >> Creative Common license. I think that one of them can fit the interests of > >> the openEHR community. In my opinion, the main aspects that a license for > >> archetypes must cover are: > >> > >> - To maintain the attribution to the original author (the openEHR > >> Foundation or whoever) > >> - To allow a commercial use of archetypes (like or not, health is a > >> business) > >> - To allow modifications and derivations of the archetype. > >> - On behalf of the openEHR community, the new derived archetypes should be > >> made public with the same conditions. This is arguable and could be > >> eliminated. > >> > >> As I said, one of the Creative Commons licenses covers all this > >> properties. It is the Attribution Share Alike license: "This license lets > >> others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, > >> as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the > >> identical terms. This license is often compared to open source software > >> licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any > >> derivatives will also allow commercial use." > >> http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses > >> > >> Finally, this leads to a secondary point. Maybe, the "copyright" attribute > >> of an archetype should be renamed to "license" to best fit the conditions > >> of > >> usage of archetypes. > >> > >> What's your opinion? > >> > >> > >> -- > >> David Moner Cano > >> Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME > >> Instituto ITACA > >> http://www.ibime.upv.es > >> > >> Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) > >> Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta > >> Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> openEHR-clinical mailing list > >> > >> openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > >> > >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Thomas Beale > >> Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics > >> > >> Chair Architectural Review Board, openEHR Foundation > >> Honorary Research Fellow, University College London > >> Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> openEHR-clinical mailing list > >> openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical > >> > >> > >> -- > >> David Moner Cano > >> Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME > >> Instituto ITACA > >> http://www.ibime.upv.es > >> > >> Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) > >> Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta > >> Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> openEHR-clinical mailing list > >> openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical > > > > > > > > -- > > David Moner Cano > > Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME > > Instituto ITACA > > http://www.ibime.upv.es > > > > Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) > > Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta > > Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > openEHR-clinical mailing list > > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical -- *************************************************************** Timothy Cook, MSc LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook Skype ID == (upon request) Academic.Edu Profile: http://uff.academia.edu/TimothyCook You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090912/df45062b/attachment.asc>
