I personally do not believe in free standards. Standards come at a cost, is the work put in to it and the travels etc for consensus meetings.
We at NEN have deliberately added a price tag to volunteer work put into a standard. Not for being paid, but to get a valid idea of how much people put in to it.
The other thing is how to keep such work sustainable in the long run. If someone makes a business eg from software that runs on “free” archetypes, who will pay the archetype maker?
No simple solution I am afraid
Met vriendelijke groet / With kind regards,
dr. William T.F. Goossen
directeur Results 4 Care B.V.
De Stinse 15
3823 VM Amersfoort
the Netherlands
-SA - Share-alike clause of a CC-BY-SA licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ which applies to openEHR -published artefacts. Basically you are free to use as long as you continue to share any forked versions on the same basis. The SA is designed to prevent people re-commercialising the artefacts themselves, not to prevent their use in commercial systems but there is some anxiety that this is potentially confusing and off-putting. We have discussed dropping the SA clause.
Let’s be careful not to confuse ‘open’ and ‘free’. Just because archetypes are ‘open’ does not mean that the work done should not be paid for. In practice, this is more difficult via an open licence vs. a proprietary licence but I think we are starting to see recognition that if international archetyping is to be made sustainable, that it must be funded in some way.