Hi! Thanks for bringing this up on the list as a more fundamental and general question Tim.
In addition to the archetype licencing some of us have a problem with the specification related licenses, they ought to be CC-BY (or similar well recognised and unencumbered license) so that images, texts, definitions, UML-files etc can be used by anyone, including commercial companies without the hassles of getting or understanding additional licenses etc. I don't see how the openEHR foundation or it's informal community could lose anything by a broad change to CC-BY for public artifacts. I think Thomas Beale once said that CC-BY was not that widespread and familiar when the specifications were first published but that CC-BY could have been a logical choice nowadays. Correct me if I'm wrong. >From previous discussions om amd off list I sensed that some people might lose a (false/illusionary) "feeling of control" if "opening up" licensing. What is approved/certified by a board (ARB, CRB etc) or not will still be very clear after changing to a more open, recognized and familiar licence. Already today someone can copy or at least closely imitate openEHR-approaches without openEHR having time/resources to legally stop it in every country. The question is why anybody would care to do such an imitation instead of the original and why any country would be committing to use such a system. So why fear? When is the next Board of Directors meeting? :-) 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 Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 04:02, Tim Cook <timothywayne.cook at gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical >
