Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-uk - Re: [Cc-uk] Ganfyd live with medical variant of Creative Commons Licence

cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-uk mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rob AT robmyers.org
  • To: cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] Ganfyd live with medical variant of Creative Commons Licence
  • Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:41:33 +0000

Quoting Stuart Yeates <stuart.yeates AT oucs.ox.ac.uk>:

[I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice]

rob AT robmyers.org wrote:
It's an interesting idea to limit editing to representatives of a particular
professional domain. In many ways the GPL does this implicitly for Free
Software, and the fact that software must run eliminates incompetent
contributions. I assume there are medical registries you can check to ensure
that contributors are who they say they are.

GPL software is released that doesn't compile.

This is an objective measure of the quality of the code, and it immediately
prevents the program from being compiled and used "in production" on a computer
system. For medical information, harm might not be immediately obvious and might
only become obvious when the product is "in production", and it may be put "in
production" in uses outside a medical institution where it cannot be
competently evaluated.

I appreciate that nuclear reactor software released under the GPL that has a
slow memory leak which will cause a meltdown after two years would be
equivalent. But it's different case to a crank editing BY-SA medical
documentation and circulating it in the general community. That would be more
like someone adding malicious code

We then get on to how you identify cranks and whether uses of cultural or
technical works differ from uses of software.

Nightly builds and other forms of snapshot frequently don't compile.
This doesn't reflect at all negatively on the competency of those
involved, it's merely a software engineering strategy to ensure that
issues caused by people independently working on the same code are
found and fixed rapidly.

Certainly. And disallowing intelligent but non-professional people from editing
work does reduce the amount of review and contribution. I am sure that a
project to produce medical information can competently review contributions.
And a crank could redistribute misleading derivatives anyway. So where's the
harm in adopting a Wikipedia "self healing" model over a
medical-practitioners-only license? It still feels like medical information is
more important. Maybe.

This is a very interesting case study. :-)

I believe that whether or not you can produce a variant of the
licence depends on the copyright licence under which the licence
text is released.

I have seen variant CC licences before. I was under the impression that you are
allowed to make them, but a quick search of CC's web site doesn't show
anything.

- Rob.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page