Consider this description of an attribution license: The licensor permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. In return, licensees must give the original author credit.
If you restrict descriptions to permissions, requirements and prohibitions, I think you never get that description. The js widget (version 0.95) never describes attribution only, I think. It assumes the user knows the basic license and gets the basic gist of the license conditions by adding or removing other elements. But it doesn't have a simple description of what you get if you select a CC license and remove all the optional properties. Jim On Feb 25, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Nathan Yergler wrote: > Great; I think we need to do some thinking here about what we have > accurate translation strings for; it may be that we should be > publishing descriptions for the license properties, not the licenses > themselves. I've opened a ticket to track this > (http://code.creativecommons.org/issues/issue163). > > Nathan > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Jim Eng <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Nathan, >> >> Thanks for your replies. The sum of the parts is fine. It doesn't >> have to >> be a single sentence. But we're looking for a short paragraph that >> describes the license. If we get that by concatenating >> descriptions of the >> various parts, so be it. >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> On Feb 24, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Nathan Yergler wrote: >> >>> Hi Jim -- >>> >>> So the problem here is that the RDF you're looking at was generated >>> programmatically from existing systems. One of our ongoing >>> goals/challenges is to make reality match what we claim; that is, >>> that >>> the RDF is the canonical representation of the license. I'm happy >>> to >>> report that we're going to be putting some directed effort into this >>> in the next month or so, but I expect there will be some rough >>> spots. >>> Like this one. The reason there's no description for the "compound" >>> licenses is that the descriptions you're seeing are actually for the >>> particular license elements (ie, "BY" or "NC"), not the entire >>> license. I suppose to make the RDF match reality we should purge >>> all >>> of those dc:description elements, since calling them the description >>> of the license is potentially inaccurate. >>> >>> It might be useful to find out what you expect a reasonable value of >>> dc:description for a License would be. If it's a one sentence >>> summary >>> of the license, I'm not sure we have an analogous "feature" right >>> now >>> on the site. >>> >>> Nathan >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Jim Eng <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I am looking at the license metadata from the licenses directory of >>>> the liblicense-0.8.1 zip file. I'm wondering about the logic for >>>> finding a license description. The metadata defines 376 >>>> licenses, and >>>> only a few of them have "dc:description" elements. Those with >>>> descriptions are the simple licenses ("by", "nc", "nd", "sa"). The >>>> composite licenses (e.g. "by-nc-nd", "by-nc-sa", "by-nc", "by-nd- >>>> nc", >>>> "by-nd", "by-sa", "nc-sa") do not contain definition elements. >>> >>>> >>>> Suppose I want to display an plain-English (or plain-French or >>>> plain- >>>> Chinese or whatever locale my user requires) description of a "by- >>>> nc- >>>> nd" license for a particular jurisdiction. I would start with the >>>> most recent version of that license for the jurisdiction (2.5 in >>>> most >>>> cases or 3.0 if the jurisdiction is the USA) and find that it >>>> does not >>>> have a description. So do I then look for the three licenses >>>> ("by", >>>> "nc" and "nd") and combine their descriptions to get the >>>> description >>>> of "by-nc-nd"? >>>> >>>> If the answer to the last question is "yes", here's a follow-up >>>> question: It looks like the most recent general description of >>>> "by" is >>>> 3.0, but most (or all?) of the licenses for separate jurisdictions >>>> have descriptions in version 2.5. Which should we use -- the >>>> description for the preferred locale for the general 3.0 "by" >>>> license >>>> or the description for the preferred locale for the specific >>>> jurisdiction's 2.5 "by" license? For "nc" and "nd", do I use the >>>> 1.0 >>>> version unless the jurisdiction is "jp", in which case, do I use >>>> the >>>> 2.0 description? >>>> >>>> The metadata in the license files seems to be silent on the >>>> question >>>> of how to find an appropriate description unless it's included in >>>> the >>>> license itself (or in a license referenced in an "isReplacedBy" >>>> tag or >>>> a "source" tag). By that I mean that the metadata for version 3.0 >>>> of >>>> the "by-nc-nd" license makes no reference to any prior versions >>>> or to >>>> the "by", "nc" or "nd" licenses. That makes me wonder if the >>>> plain- >>>> language description for a particular locale and jurisdition is >>>> defined somewhere else? >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for any suggestions. >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> cc-devel mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
