[License-discuss] Derivative Works of a standard

Mon Jul 9 17:59:37 UTC 2012

Grahame, I apologize for the incorrect links on the official OWF website. My
version has the correct links, so I'm going to make sure it gets posted to
the OWF website. In the meantime, here's the link to my Google Docs version
that should contain the accurate links:  http://bit.ly/ORf662

As to standards organizations that actually use these agreements, here is
the most recent list that I'm aware of:
http://www.openwebfoundation.org/faqs/users-of-owf-agreements 

Regarding your question about derivative works, here are the copyright
grants from the OWFa and CLA 1.0 (highlight added):

OWF CLA section 2.1: Copyright Grant.   I grant to you a perpetual (for the
duration of the applicable copyright), worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
royalty-free, copyright license, without any obligation for accounting to
me, to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly
perform, sublicense, distribute, and implement any Contribution to the full
extent of my copyright interest in the Contribution.

OWFa section 2.1:   Copyright Grant.  I grant to you a perpetual (for the
duration of the applicable copyright), worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
royalty-free, copyright license, without any obligation for accounting to
me, to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly
perform, sublicense, distribute, and implement the Specification to the full
extent of my copyright interest in the Specification.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Office: 707-485-1242

-----Original Message-----
From: Grahame Grieve [mailto:grahame at healthintersections.com.au] 
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 6:07 AM
To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com; license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Derivative Works of a standard

Thanks Larry

> Please take a look at

>
<http://www.openwebfoundation.org/faqs/open-web-foundation-cla-1-0-owfa-1-0-
faq>
http://www.openwebfoundation.org/faqs/open-web-foundation-cla-1-0-owfa-1-0-f
aq.

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:[mailto:grahame at healthintersections.com.au]>
[mailto:grahame at healthintersections.com.au]

> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 7:09 AM

> To:  <mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org>
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> 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

>  <mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org> License-discuss at opensource.org

>  <http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discus>
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discus

> s

> 

> _______________________________________________

> License-discuss mailing list

>  <mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org> License-discuss at opensource.org

>  <http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discus>
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discus

> s

--

-----

 <http://www.healthintersections.com.au>
http://www.healthintersections.com.au /

 <mailto:grahame at healthintersections.com.au>
grahame at healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120709/3cabc657/attachment.html>