OurMed:B-Plan

ourmed.org B-Plan DMS IIT Delhi

= 1. Ashish (Co-Ordinator) legal ( what are the steps needed to protect the organization from legal issues around volunteers posting medical information online), =

Read this complain of a user

"Hello,

Well, I am annoyed to say so, but I really would like that Ourmed does not turn to be a huge copyright violation of Wikipedia. And articles such as Parkinson's disease are exactly that.

Wikipedia content is not free to use without any obligation. The content is under the GFDL and any derivatives (and naturally any copy) of the content must be under the GFDL. So, first point is that ourmed is apparently not under GFDL, but under CC BY SA. We are many to hope that one day GFDL and CCBYSA become compatible, but fact is, right now, it is not the case. You simply can not take Wikipedia content and relicence it under CC BY SA. The issue has been discussed with Stan in the past and I thought it was understood that relicencing was not okay. A middle solution is to put all content under dual licencing. That's not perfect at all, but that's the best we can reasonably do.

Second, the GFDL requires as well that the authors or the source be mentionned. Again, the Parkinson's disease do not mention the source is Wikipedia, nor put a link to the list of authors. Since this place is a wiki, the easiest way to do that is simply to recognise at the bottom of the page that this article comes from Wikipedia and add a link to the history of the article on Wikipedia."

 These are the terms deciphered : 

GFDL

GFDL The GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL or simply GFDL) is a copyleft license for free documentation, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU Project. It is similar to the GNU General Public License, giving readers the rights to copy, redistribute and modify a work and requires all copies and derivatives to be available under the same license. Copies may also be sold commercially, but, if produced in larger quantities (greater than 100), the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient.

The GFDL was designed for manuals, textbooks, other reference and instructional materials, and documentation which often accompanies GNU software. However, it can be used for any text-based work, regardless of subject matter. For example, the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia uses the GFDL for all of its text.

CC BY SA

CC BY SA Creative Commons licenses are several copyright licenses released on December 16, 2002 by Creative Commons, a U.S. non-profit corporation founded in 2001.

Many of the licenses, notably all the original licenses, grant certain "baseline rights",[1] such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work without changes, at no charge. Some of the newer licenses do not grant these rights.

Creative Commons licenses are currently available in 43 different jurisdictions worldwide, with more than nineteen others under development.[2] Licenses for jurisdictions outside of the United States are under the purview of Creative Commons International.

Dual Licensing

Why dual licenses

The GFDL is very similar to the CC license; however, the CC license is very attractive because it is very clearly and simply explained. Some projects opt to use the CC instead of the GFDL (although not necessarily for the same reason) and it would be nice if these projects could borrow Wikipedia material. Because the GFDL and CC are currently incompatible, this is not possible. Since I own the copyright to my contribution, I can choose to dual-license it if I want (subject to the original author's right to control derivative works of his work). My hope is that if enough people do the same, then we could make large swathes of Wikipedia text available to CC users.

Why not dual license

It adds an additional layer of complication onto the already difficult GFDL licensing. It makes things hard for other people -- not for the dual licensor -- which is pretty unfair. It's confusing. It's got a very tiny audience -- almost anyone can use the GFDL license, with only a few folks who can't. And Wikipedia is working with the Free Software Foundation to try to make the GFDL compatible with other copyleft content licenses. The biggest reason not to dual licence is that it is another way that your dual-licenced content could become incompatible with Wikipedia. User X copies your content which is dual licenced from Wikipedia User X works on this content under a CC licence and expands it Now, if user X does not decide to dual-licence his modifications under the GFDL ( as opposed to what happens by default: his modifications are licenced under the CC only ) you and others would be not allowed to merge his changes back into wikipedia which you otherwise could have done, a dual licencing scheme leads to situations when copied content becomes incompatible with the parent. If you just use GFDL this only happens if the modifier adds front-cover texts, back-cover texts, or invariant sections. See the talk page for a continuation of this discussion

How to dual license

The CC license may be applied to The initial revision of any article started by a dual licensor (such as myself) Any subsequent revisions by a dual licensor up to the first modification by a non-dual licensor Any revisions by a dual licensor after that (perhaps) Imagine if Carlos and Christina (some dual licensors) and Gabriel (a non dual licensor) work on the same article. Carlos starts the article Christina makes some edits Carlos makes some more edits Gabriel makes some edits Carlos makes more edits If you wanted to use the CC, you would only be able to take the first 3 revisions of the article. Version 4 is not possible because Gabriel is a non-dual-licensor. Version 5 might not possible even though it was Carlos who made the modification. This is because he based his modification on Gabriel's work. If you wanted to use the latest version of the article, you would have to convince Gabriel to also become a dual licensor. There is a good news: If the modification made by Carlos in Version 5 was in a different part of the document than Version4, you can likely use it, minus the modifications made in by Gabriel. This is useful if the majority of the document was written by dual-licensors, with the occasional tweak by a non dual-licensor (Gabriel). As for minusing the modifications made by Gabriel, you might also find it useful to apply a little common sense. Say Version 4 consisted of Gabriel fixing a typo. Do you seriously think he's going to come after you for copyright violation? After all, you could have fixed that little typo yourself when you took over the document.

= 2. Deepu people ( in this case recruiting volunteers to post and rate information), =

= 3. Lavanya technology (in this case where do you find volunteers to help customize this wiki and what should the tech plan include in the future which can be done with a benchmark of health information sites), =

= 4. Bala finance ( developing budgets and a plan for fund raising), =

= 5. Avneet marketing ( how does ourmed reach out to inform the world of what it is doing without spending any money and how does ourmed recruit people to help with this on bloggs and email blasts to .edu people), =

= 6. Aishwarya management team and board (who are the board members that should be recruited to an organization that will be the non profit, open book, open license, open source Wikipedia / digg of health information in 200 languages and 120 countries), =

= 7.Abhinay operations (how do other virtual completely volunteer communities that are online operate for board meetings, governance, titles, incentives for the volunteers, and how does ourmed track time online for each member to determine title increase and track the quality of their posts to also increase their titles). =

= 8. Nishant Competition Analysis &amp; Innovation (analyse potential competitors, the extent of competition, identify sucess strategies, suggest innovative differentiating features for ourmed.org) =