On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Jonas Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > here's a question from IRC which was left hanging. Wondering if anyone here > has any thoughts about it :) > > 09:14 <jonaso> Been looking at > https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/372427 which uses ccREL cc:permits > and cc:requires to express licenses which are not CC licenses, ie., FAL. > They've coded FAL same as CC BY-SA > 09:14 <jonaso> I wonder if that's the intent: ns#Attribution has a specific > meaning in the CC vocabulary which is slightly different from FAL's > attribution requirement. > 09:15 <jonaso> So I wonder if we should think of ccREL ns#Attribution as > "requires some attribution, unspecified exactly how, what or when" or if > ns#Attribution should mean more exactly the terms of the CC licenses. > 09:16 <jonaso> In the latter case, I guess there should be a separate > vocabulary to express terms more closely to FAL and other licenses.
This is separate from discussion about cc:attributionName/URL, which are work properties. cc:Attribution is a cc:Requirement which is in the range of cc:requires which has a domain of cc:License. cc:Attribution should be thought of as "requires some attribution, unspecified exactly how, what or when". The 2009(!) bug you cite is due to Inkscape apparently identifying license by its coarse requirements/prohibitions/permissions rather than by a canonical identifier for an individual license, as it should. Mike _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
