# Latest ADL (archetype definition language)
**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/latest-adl-archetype-definition-language/16700
**Category:** Technical (archive)
**Created:** [24 September 2003 09:34 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/latest-adl-archetype-definition-language/16700 "2003-09-24T09:34:28Z")
**Posts on this page:** 7
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/thomas.beale)
#### Post date: [24 September 2003 09:34 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/latest-adl-archetype-definition-language/16700/1 "2003-09-24T09:34:28Z")
Dear all,
an update of the ADL language for writing archetypes has been posted.
News:
This language is being proposed to CEN for the archetypes facility in its revised ENV13606,
and will be discussed at the CEN TC/251 Aarhus meeting (29/30 September).
It is also being considered for use in the HL7v3 templates work, and was discussed at the
HL7 Memphis WGM (7-12 September).
A clinician’s editor is under construction.
Links:
**Language specification** : [http://www.oceaninformatics.biz/adl/adl\_0\_9\_5.pdf](http://www.oceaninformatics.biz/adl/adl_0_9_5.pdf)
**Toolkit** : [http://www.oceaninformatics.biz/adl/ADL\_0\_9\_5.zip](http://www.oceaninformatics.biz/adl/ADL_0_9_5.zip) (this contains everything)
**ADL page with examples** : [http://www.oceaninformatics.biz/adl.html](http://www.oceaninformatics.biz/adl.html)
**README file** : see end of this mail
The toolkit contains the following things:
- GUI validator executable for Windows
- example archetypes in ADL and HTML format
- a copy of the PDF manual
- thomas beale
…
Here is a copy of the README file:
---
### Author:  [@Tim\_Churches](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Tim_Churches)
#### Post date: [24 September 2003 21:13 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/latest-adl-archetype-definition-language/16700/2 "2003-09-24T21:13:48Z")
> an update of the ADL language for writing archetypes has been posted.
Fabulous! Many thanks.
> Here is a copy of the README file:
>
> parse\_specification: yacc and lex production rule files describing
> the
> ADL syntax.
Thanks for including these!
> COPYRIGHT
> This work, including all files in this directory and
> subdirectories is
> copyrighted to Ocean Informatics Pty Ltd, Australia, 2003.
>
> USE
> The archetype files, GUI validator, and PDF manual can all be
> freely
> distributed provided they are kept intact, and are accompanied by
> this
> readme file.
Would it be possible to license the material, with the exception of the
validator software and the lex/yacc files under a formal open source
documentation license, such as The GNU Free Documentation license - see
[http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL](http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL) - or one of the Creative
Commons licenses - see [http://creativecommons.org/license/](http://creativecommons.org/license/) and place a
message in each document pointing to the chosen license. Doing this
provides better protection for everyone - both authors and users - than
the above note in a README file.
---
### Author:  [@thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/thomas.beale)
#### Post date: [26 September 2003 12:41 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/latest-adl-archetype-definition-language/16700/3 "2003-09-26T12:41:56Z")
Tim Churches wrote:
> Would it be possible to license the material, with the exception of the
> validator software and the lex/yacc files under a formal open source
> documentation license, such as The GNU Free Documentation license - see
> [http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL](http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL) - or one of the Creative
> Commons licenses - see [http://creativecommons.org/license/](http://creativecommons.org/license/) and place a
> message in each document pointing to the chosen license. Doing this
> provides better protection for everyone - both authors and users - than
> the above note in a README file.
The licencing that I think will occur will be as follows:
ADL language definition document + language production rules (a bit more precisely produced than the ones I have included in this package) - copyright to openEHR. The conditions of use are included below (and are very open as you can see). This copyright description was developed by the legal group of University College London; hopefully it is acceptable to all prospective users.
The software will probably remain copyright to Ocean. The licence will most likely be the current openEHR licence devised in Australia, but legal people will still need to check this. That licence is a Mozilla clone (whcih guarantees it is automatically accepted as a valid OS licence). There was some discussion about considering a modified GPL as well - I have to admit I am not quite up to date on this. I have also realised that the openEHR licence is not on the website. So - there are a few details which we need to clarify. There is still a discussion going on abotu dual-licencing as well.
Essnetially, everything will be as open as possible, with strong copyright protection (this is to protect the openEHR community from corporate or other appropriation & msuse of materials).
I realise that I forgot to include the link to the current licence at openEHR (see URL in copyright statement below) - this is the full wording of the licence for documentation - it will be included next version. The software won't be released for a while simply because we need enough time to clean it up, document it well enough that when it is released, we do not drown in a barrage of email about "how does work/what does htis mean" etc. However, I don't mind releasing it to interested individuals who promise not to flood us too much! Just a matter of resources, as I'm sure everyone can understand.
Hope this helps. There will be a number of announcements in the next few weeks, which will clear up various things, includiing licence details.
- thomas beale
---
### Author:  [@Tim\_Churches](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Tim_Churches)
#### Post date: [26 September 2003 20:38 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/latest-adl-archetype-definition-language/16700/4 "2003-09-26T20:38:36Z")
> Tim Churches wrote:
>
> \>Would it be possible to license the material, with the exception of the
> \>validator software and the lex/yacc files under a formal open source
> \>documentation license, such as The GNU Free Documentation license - see
> \>[http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL](http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL) - or one of the Creative
> \>Commons licenses - see [http://creativecommons.org/license/](http://creativecommons.org/license/) and place a
> \>message in each document pointing to the chosen license. Doing this
> \>provides better protection for everyone - both authors and users - than
> \>the above note in a README file.
> \>
> \>
> The licencing that I think will occur will be as follows:
>
> ADL language definition document + language production rules (a bit more
> precisely produced than the ones I have included in this package) -
> copyright to openEHR. The conditions of use are included below (and are
> very open as you can see). This copyright description was developed by
> the legal group of University College London; hopefully it is acceptable
> to all prospective users.
It is much better to be as explicit and repetitive as possible (i.e. put
your licensing arrangements or clear references to or summaries of them
everywhere you can, including as headers in every file.
> The software will probably remain copyright to Ocean. The licence will
> most likely be the current openEHR licence devised in Australia, but
> legal people will still need to check this. That licence is a Mozilla
> clone (whcih guarantees it is automatically accepted as a valid OS
> licence). There was some discussion about considering a modified GPL as
> well - I have to admit I am not quite up to date on this. I have also
> realised that the openEHR licence is not on the website. So - there are
> a few details which we need to clarify. There is still a discussion
> going on abotu dual-licencing as well.
Yes, the Mozilla license allows proprietary system vendors to write
wrappers with their own API around your code, without having to release
the wrapper (and hence their internal APIs). Of course, any changes to
your code they must release (if they plan on distribution to third
parties, that is). However, the Mozilla license is suposedly
incompatible with the GPL - the solution is to allow dual licensing,
with the GPL as the alternative license. people wanting to combine
openEHR code with other GPLed code can chose the GPL license, whereas
others (e.g. commercial vendors wishing to write interfaces to openEHR
code) will probably chose the Mozilla license. And of course openEHR can
still enter into separate commercial licensing agreements with
commercial vendors for the code (which openEHR has written, but not
code contributed under the Mozilla or GPL licenses unless the authors of
the contributions agree to such commercial licensing, or unless they
sign over their copyright to openEHR - you need to be explicit about
this when accepting contributed code into the main openEHR codebase).
> Essnetially, everything will be as open as possible, with strong
> copyright protection (this is to protect the openEHR community from
> corporate or other appropriation & msuse of materials).
No complaints there. Use copyright to the maximum extent possible.
> I realise that I forgot to include the link to the current licence at
> openEHR (see URL in copyright statement below) - this is the full
> wording of the licence for documentation - it will be included next
> version. The software won't be released for a while simply because we
> need enough time to clean it up, document it well enough that when it is
> released, we do not drown in a barrage of email about "how does
> work/what does htis mean" etc. However, I don't mind releasing it to
> interested individuals who promise not to flood us too much! Just a
> matter of resources, as I'm sure everyone can understand.
A few more comments below.
> Hope this helps. There will be a number of announcements in the next few
> weeks, which will clear up various things, includiing licence details.
>
> - thomas beale
>
> -----------------------
>
> © Copyright /open/EHR Foundation 2001 - 2003
>
> All Rights Reserved
>
> 1. This document is protected by copyright and/or database right
> throughout the world and is owned by the /open/EHR Foundation.
>
> 2. You may read and print the document for private, non-commercial
> use.
I think that is already problematic. You are saying that "commercial"
people/entities cannot even read the document? presumably they will be
able to buy identical copies which they can read?
Also, what is "private, non-commercial use" - the comma implies a
logical AND in legal terms, I understand. If I am employed in a
publicly-funded organisation (which would presumably be "public,
non-commercial use"), I can't read the document? Huh?
However the biggest problem is the attempt to distinguish between
"commercial" and "private"/"non-commercial". My understanding from those
with experience in such matters is that such distinctions are fraught
with difficulties and future court cases. The distinction between
academe and business is totally blurred in the US, and increasingly so
in other countries. In some US universities, they even get the best and
brightest undergraduates to work on commercial R&D projects! I won't go
on, but almost every time you examine instances of the
commercial/non-commercial distinction you become mired in if, buts and
grey areas. My advice is don't go there. Much better to let all god's
children read your documents - again, I refer you to the various
Creative Commons licenses.
> 3. You may use this document (in whole or in part) for the purposes
> of making presentations and education, so long as such purposes are
> non-commercial and are designed to comment on, further the goals of, or
> inform third parties about, /open/EHR.
So can the documents be presented for discussion by a third party at a
commercially-organised, for-profit health informatics conference in
which speakers are paid fees?
> 4. You must not alter, modify, add to or delete anything from the
> document you use (except as is permitted in paragraphs 2 and 3 above).
>
> 5. You shall, in any use of this document, include an
> acknowledgement in the form:
>
> "© Copyright /open/EHR Foundation 2001-2003. All rights reserved.
> www.openEHR.org"
No problems with any of these.
> 6. This document is being provided as a service to the academic
> community and on a non-commercial basis. Accordingly, to the fullest
> extent permitted under applicable law, the /open/EHR Foundation accepts
> no liability and offers no warranties in relation to the materials and
> documentation and their content.
The "Accordingly" is unnecessary - the second assertion is not a legal
consequence of the first.
> 7. If you wish to commercialise, license, sell, distribute, use or
> otherwise copy the materials and documents on this site other than as
> provided for in paragraphs 1 to 6 above, you must comply with the terms
> and conditions of the /open/EHR Free Commercial Use Licence, or enter
> into a separate written agreement with /open/EHR Foundation covering
> such activities. The terms and conditions of the /open/EHR Free
> Commercial Use Licence can be found at
> [http://www.openehr.org/free\_commercial\_use.htm](http://www.openehr.org/free_commercial_use.htm)
No problems with the thrust of this, only with the attempt at
commercial/non-commercial distinction - you are setting yourselves up to
fail in that endeavour. Better to have one set of rules for everyone. I
won't comment in detail on the free commercial license - the intent is
fine, but the wording seems problematic to my legally-lay eyes.
Licensing of openEHR intellectual property is entirely your perogative,
but it is always good practice in law as in medicine to seek a range of
learned opinions about critical matters. Thus, I urge you to seek
another legal opinion on your licensing arrangements. I know its a pain
but it ends up being very important. Can I recommend Mr Brendon Scott, a
Sydney-based lawyer who specialises in open source and other IT
licensing issues - he has a background in both law and maths/comp
science. His web site is at
[http://members.optushome.com.au/brendanscott/](http://members.optushome.com.au/brendanscott/)
---
### Author:  [@Dipak\_Kalra](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Dipak_Kalra)
#### Post date: [27 September 2003 16:30 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/latest-adl-archetype-definition-language/16700/5 "2003-09-27T16:30:58Z")
Dear Tim,
We have put quite some effort into the current complete wording, recognising the practical difficulty in distinguishing "commercial" from "non-commercial" purposes. I am not sure how much of the total wording you have seen, and it might well be that we have overlooked some issues for which I'd certainly be grateful for feedback. I shall first talk to Tom about what he has sent you so far, since we are both here in Aarhus for a few days, and then get back to you with some clarifications.
(The scope of our present wording is limited to the web site and downloads, documentary materials and software components that do not include their source code. Suitable licences for source code is now the next matter receiving our attention.)
With best wishes,
Dipak
---
### Author:  [@thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/thomas.beale)
#### Post date: [1 October 2003 15:26 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/latest-adl-archetype-definition-language/16700/6 "2003-10-01T15:26:52Z")
Dipak Kalra wrote:
> Dear Tim,
>
> We have put quite some effort into the current complete wording, recognising the practical difficulty in distinguishing "commercial" from "non-commercial" purposes. I am not sure how much of the total wording you have seen, and it might well be that we have overlooked some issues for which I'd certainly be grateful for feedback. I shall first talk to Tom about what he has sent you so far, since we are both here in Aarhus for a few days, and then get back to you with some clarifications.
>
> (The scope of our present wording is limited to the web site and downloads, documentary materials and software components that do not include their source code. Suitable licences for source code is now the next matter receiving our attention.)
After some discussions with Peter Schloeffel, Dipak Kalra, the consensus seems to be that dual licencing replaces Mozilla effectively, so it looks as if this is the way will we go - dual licence where the OS one is the GPL. Obviously I was a bit out of the loop on this one - sorry for any confusion.
Your suggestions about where to include copyright notices are noted (and understood - we just have not updated all the files - it is intended that it will be done by scripts).
- thomas beale
---
### Author:  [@Tim\_Churches](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Tim_Churches)
#### Post date: [1 October 2003 21:02 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/latest-adl-archetype-definition-language/16700/7 "2003-10-01T21:02:49Z")
Excellent, all that sounds very satisfactory indeed from every possible
point of view.