| licensing Concerns (Creative Commons Non Commercial Shar etc [message #487] |
Tue, 20 September 2005 04:38  |
privacy geek
Messages: 25
Registered: June 2005 |
|
|
|
Hi All,
This question is directed to fred trotter and Uversa in particular,
1. ShareAlike and Attribution I have no issues with.. but
2.does non commercial mean I cant install this at consulting rates for non technical clients requesting installation assistance or RUN same installation internally and provide Access to same as an ASP or billing ASP to a practioner group.
3. providing customizations such as tablet PC integration, custom forms development, translucent database support(currently I am planning to add the functionality via java applet loaded in the browser) or Encryption support/OS Customizations(for OpenBSD or OSX for example).
If I cant do the above then I function as an unpaid developer for uversa and as such lose interest in any further involvement with clearhealth/freeb.
fred or dave can you clarify??
a privacy geek
|
|
|
| PING! Fred Trotter or Dave Uhlman Please respond [message #495] |
Tue, 20 September 2005 16:47  |
privacy geek
Messages: 25
Registered: June 2005 |
|
|
|
To above posting... does this mean I cant support clearhealth as a consultant?
Interested privacy geek wants to know
|
|
|
| oops! I shouldnt post when I have been awake more than 24H [message #496] |
Wed, 21 September 2005 03:16 |
privacy geek
Messages: 25
Registered: June 2005 |
|
|
|
Subject says it all I dont know where the Creative commons stuff wiffled through my empty head. All I can seem to find on Clearhealth and Cellini is a GPL license...
sorry for the confusion and misinformation
privacy geek
ps dave fred please feel free to straighten me out 
|
|
|
| licensing issues [message #499] |
Wed, 21 September 2005 16:07 |
 duhlman
Messages: 654
Registered: February 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ |
Site Admin
|
|
|
There are several things going on here.
1) The documentation in the Wiki is under the creative commons share-alike non-commercial license. It can be redistributed, edited so on, it cannot be sold commercially (for the documentation) or printed and redistributed (commercially) without our permission.
2) The software code is overwhelming under the GPL, some libraries are under different but compatible licenses.
3) Some data such as CPT codes is licensed by their respective owners such as the American Medical Association and we cannot include it in the GPL download due to that
4) Uversa does own the ClearHealth name and you may not use that name in a commercial context as part of offering consulting or products in a way that does not reference our ownerrship of the name without our written permission. So for example you are not be able to represent ClearHealth as a product of your company, you can use the code but would have to rename it.
We do this for a variety of reasons, Uversa is extremely focused on customer service and it is very important to us that the value we build on our trademarks is retained and understood by potential customers. Allowing anyone to go and use that name in a commercial context could lead to a bad association with the name were a customer to have a bad experience that we had nothing to do with. We are generally not against permitting this but it does require our written permission, we would vet that you were qualified and so forth.
5) In a case where you are only performing consulting work around an installation this is a bit of a grey area and so long as the customer understood that ClearHealth is a Uversa product and that you were not the author (or sole author) of the software that might be an acceptable case. In general if you are interested in offering a product line based on ClearHealth we would ask that you get our permission or use a different name.
Most of the decisions we have made here are reflective of the community at large and in convention or similar in nature to the Mozilla foundations trademark policy for Mozilla and FireFox, RedHat softwares RedHat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and so on.
Sincerely,
David Uhlman
Customer Happiness Guru
ClearHealth Inc.
|
|
|
| Thanx so much for your reply... [message #503] |
Thu, 22 September 2005 14:45 |
privacy geek
Messages: 25
Registered: June 2005 |
|
|
|
Hi Dave,
Thanks so much for your reply and clarifications,
and of course I had forgotten completely about forking the project(not to be desired as its splits the developement energy available.).
I think think the terms/licensing you laid out are completely equitable and fair.
thanx again
a privacy geek
|
|
|
| Re: licensing Concerns (Creative Commons Non Commercial Shar etc [message #1481 is a reply to message #487 ] |
Wed, 20 December 2006 14:51 |
blurngr
Messages: 4
Registered: October 2006 |
|
|
|
Sorry for digging up an old thread, but I have some questions on this. I just want to make sure that I read all of that correctly, and it's still true today.
If I want to provide consulting around this product (ClearHealth), then either need to (a) fork it or (b) mention everywhere that it is owned by Uversa? I assume that this means that a press release or a case study would need the usual disclaimer's at the bottom?
I'm asking, because if you look over at this URL: http://ehr.gplmedicine.org/index.php/ClearHealth/MirrorMed_R eview
It says that "however Uversa trademark policies do not allow other companies to offer support services under that name" ... is that true? So, if I wanted to say "We can support your installation of ClearHealth", we'd be in violation of ClearHealth's trademark policies?
Are these documented anywhere?
Thanks.
|
|
|
| Re: licensing Concerns (Creative Commons Non Commercial Shar etc [message #1486 is a reply to message #1481 ] |
Wed, 20 December 2006 20:32 |
duhlman
Messages: 654
Registered: February 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ |
Site Admin
|
|
|
If you want to offer commercial services around the product you have a couple of options:
1) Change the name to something else (doesn't necessarily need to be a fork but cannot include the ClearHealth or Uversa name at all). A example of this would be CentOS a competitor to RedHat EL.
2) Join our reseller program which offers both reseller partner (you work with the customer, we work with you) and referral comission based relationships (get a percentage on referred business). With this you can use the ClearHealth name. Call us for details on these.
You cannot use, excluding protected fair use, the ClearHealth name outside of option 2.
We have a couple of successful resellers already and would be happy to work with you if you find our structure suitable. Our main goal in controlling use of the ClearHealth name is to protect is reputation and avoid customer confusion as we continue to market and grow the use of it.
Sincerely,
David Uhlman
Customer Happiness Guru
ClearHealth Inc.
|
|
|
| Re: licensing Concerns (Creative Commons Non Commercial Shar etc [message #1612 is a reply to message #487 ] |
Fri, 16 February 2007 17:24 |
RussNelson
Messages: 1
Registered: February 2007 |
|
|
|
You should contact a trademark attorney. My understanding of trademark law (and I am not a lawyer) does not match the previous posting. As long as you are telling the truth, you can always use somebody else's trademark. So for example, you can say that you provide support for ClearHealth -- IF and ONLY IF the code you distribute is exactly what ClearHealth distributes. If you modify the code, it's not ClearHealth anymore.
My understanding is that the law doesn't oblige you to acknowledge trademark ownership. Oftentimes you will see a competitor acknowledge trademark ownership when a trademark is used in an advertisement, but that's only because they don't want to get sued -- not because they think they would lose a lawsuit. Besides which, it's only fair to acknowledge somebody's trademark even if you aren't worried about infringement suits.
Let me reiterate that you shouldn't rely on what I say here, nor should you necessarily rely on what Uversa has to say here either. If you want legal advice, ask a lawyer, not a hacker.
|
|
|
| Re: licensing Concerns (Creative Commons Non Commercial Shar etc [message #1613 is a reply to message #1481 ] |
Mon, 19 February 2007 13:13 |
fredtrotter
Messages: 188
Registered: August 2006 |
|
|
|
Hi,
It should be noted that the review at ehr.gplmedicine.org is primarily based on my understanding at the time of the review. David, as the CEO of ClearHealth (the new name of the company) who owns the trademark makes the determination about how they view the issue of trademark. I will actually begin pointing the ehr.gplmedicine.org site to this thread in acknowledgment of this.
Further, as with any legal issue 1. you need to talk to a lawyer to be sure (and I am not one) and 2. Even they will have different opinions of how things work.
From the perspective of using the ClearHealth name, I would suggest respecting David and ClearHealth Inc.'s wishes, not because they are necessarily legally correct, but because what they are asking for is fair. They are attempting to use trademark to control their revenue stream and we, as community members, should encourage them in that. Having a company (preferably several... for my sake) with stable income from the codebase ensures a long life for the code. Otherwise its a mom-and-pop project and I have seen that go very badly.
It seems counter-intuitive, but we want the name to strongly controlled, even with the inconvenience that this may cause some community members.
-FT
Fred Trotter, MirrorMed
|
|
|
| Re: licensing Concerns (Creative Commons Non Commercial Shar etc [message #1614 is a reply to message #1613 ] |
Mon, 19 February 2007 15:56 |
duhlman
Messages: 654
Registered: February 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ |
Site Admin
|
|
|
As already pointed out I represent our opinion on the matter. Our trademark policy is as follows:
1) If you would like to offer consulting or commercial services around it we have reseller programs avaialble. If you would prefer not to participate in those you have every right to use the code but we request that you provide it under a different name and do not use our mark or name in any capacity.
2) We will and do pursue people who use our mark without our permission, we are "ClearHealth" and someone else using that mark breeds confusion and dilutes the strength of our brand. This is in no way to indicate that we are litigious or interested in being so but as an open source company our trademark holds particular value and we need to take the requisite steps to protect it that the law requires.
3) It is perfectly acceptable to use our mark in discussing, reviewing, or criticizing us, the part we have a problem with is the commercial exploitation of our brand. Commercial speech excepting that, for purposes of comparison, criticism or review is prohibited.
We aren't trying to assert any rights that are inconsistent with any trademark holder who is complying with the law to retain ownership and prevent dilution of their respective mark.
Sincerely,
David Uhlman
Customer Happiness Guru
ClearHealth Inc.
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
