Archetype authoring attribution
gfrer at luna.nl
Thu Mar 22 08:39:27 EDT 2012
Creative Commons license CC-BY-SA 2.0, applying to all openEHR.org achetypes hosted at the openEHR Clinical Knowledge Manager (CKM).
My simplistic understanding.
A derived work has to be derived.
So when you use the information and transpose it as constraints on an other RM,
then I consider this new archetype as derived from that new RM it is transposed to.
So when this approach is followed then the Attribution is to the group that provided the clinical content.
But there is no attribution to the openEHR RM specification.
When you translate the text in the openEHR archetype to Dutch it is derived but still derived from the original openEHR RM.
In this case attribution must be stated to openEHR RM and the clinical group.
Is this an answer?
gfrer at luna.nl
On 22 mrt. 2012, at 13:03, David Moner wrote:
> Back again with the licensing topic of archetypes, with a real use case.
> We have been asked to help in creating a set of 13606 archetypes for breast and prostate cancer. Although they will probably incorporate some new requirements, the main source will be some of the openEHR archetypes available at the CKM.
> Assuming that the have adopted a CC-BY(-SA) license (I cannot recall which is the state of that discussion), the doubts are the following:
> - Converting the archetype to a new reference model is considered as a derivation? Or the openEHR archetype is considered just as a reference material as could be any textbook or paper?
> - The author of the new archetype has to be the one of the openEHR archetype (Ian McNicoll btw) or the person who in fact creates the new RM-based archetype?
> The underlying question here that should be clarified is to define which is the extension of the concept "derived work".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openEHR-clinical