[License-discuss] Derivative Works of a standard

Grahame Grieve grahame at healthintersections.com.au
Mon Jul 9 23:58:58 UTC 2012

>> The basic notion is that you don't actually provide "a license" for
>> the standard, you provide a group of the OWFa statements from
>> "the contributers" (though, in my context, I have *no* idea how
>> we'd figure out how that was).
> You may not own the IP you seek to license. If you don't know who are the
> owners of the IP in your standards, then how can you license it? Or rather,
> any license you do give the world will be misleading and invalid. Nobody
> here can help you do that.

Well, I understand the principle of that. But how can any useful standard
not be littered with IP from all over the place? I suspect that these OWFa
standards just push the deceit out to the contributers

> OWF assumes that you have exercised diligence and maintained records of all
> contributors. We recommend that you use the CLA to receive a license to
> their contributions. Then final signatures on the OWFa require no further
> negotiation.
> I've talked with others in the past about HL7. I don't believe your group is
> yet committed to full open source licensing for HL7 specifications, so your
> question may be premature anyway.

yes, sigh, that's unfortunately a true statement. Though the deceit part applies
whether or not it's open, really. I don't know how to resolve this. But OMG,
for instance, do you rate them as an open source license?


More information about the License-discuss mailing list