Archetype authoring attribution
Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com
Thu Mar 22 09:17:39 EDT 2012
I am tied up at a conference all day but will respond in more detail later.
This is a very important question and I see no barrier to you adapting
these archetypes to 13606 but I would much prefer to collaborate in
extending the openEHR archetypes. We have not made a final decision on the
licensing of archetypes but the alternatives being considered are even less
restrictive to reuse, derivation.
Dr Ian McNicoll
Clinical modelling consultant Ocean Informatics
Mobile +44 (0) 775 209 7859
On 22 Mar 2012, at 12:03, David Moner <damoca at gmail.com> 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
The underlying question here that should be clarified is to define which is
the extension of the concept "derived work".
David Moner Cano
Grupo de Informática Biomédica - IBIME
Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (UPV)
Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3ª planta
Valencia – 46022 (España)
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openEHR-clinical