[License-discuss] Derivative Works of a standard

[Grahame Grieve]

Thanks Larry

> Please take a look at
> http://www.openwebfoundation.org/faqs/open-web-foundation-cla-1-0-owfa-1-0-faq.

So I had read these at length before, and come away hopelessly confused.
I see now that at least part of the reason is a wrong link - the link
for OWFa 1.0 (Patent & Copyright) actually points to the OWF CLA 1.0
(Patent & Copyright). But even the link below to the earlier OWFa doesn't seem
to point to a license that is suitable to put on the final specification - more
of an in process agreement that needs to be made during it's preparation?

I think those things are great ideas, but does any standards organisation
actually use them? Actually publish standards developed under them?

And I don't think they answer my original question either, about
derived works. But perhaps I am just too unfamiliar with the content
to see how they do.

Grahame

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grahame Grieve [mailto:grahame at healthintersections.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 7:09 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: [License-discuss] Derivative Works of a standard
>
> I am trying to pick an appropriate open license for a new standard in the
> healthcare space. The prospective standard and it's working license are
> here:
> http://hl7.org/fhir
>
> The working license is adapted from OMG. but I'm struggling to understand
> the concept of derivative works when I consider the issue of standards.
> What's a derivative work? As far as I can tell, it's any implementation that
> complies with the standard, and that was written based on reading it. And
> therefore, since the standards are - almost always - copyright, therefore,
> any product that implements any standard needs to include the copyright
> notice associated with the standard, per the recent emails on this list.
>
> Clearly not, however, in practice. Why not? what's the difference?
>
> Is it only a derivative work if it quotes at length from the source? more
> than fair use? where do the html tutorials stand, then, that "derive" from
> the html specification in violation of the w3c license?
>
> I'm finding the concept of derivative works very difficult to define for a
> standard.
> And given the plain english intent of the standard at the link referenced
> above (see below), does the osr have any suitable approved license? I can't
> find one.
> In particular, we cannot have a requirement to reproduce the
> license/copyright statement in implementations of the standard...
>
> thanks
> Grahame
>
>     FHIR is C HL7. The right to maintain FHIR remains vested in HL7
>     You can redistribute FHIR
>     You can create derivative specifications or implementation related
> products and services
>     Derivative Specifications cannot redefine what conformance to FHIR means
>     You can't claim that HL7 or any of it's members endorses your derived
> [thing] because it uses content from this specification
>     Neither HL7 nor any of the contributers to this specification accept any
> liability for your use of FHIR
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss



-- 
-----
http://www.healthintersections.com.au /
grahame at healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065