Thanks Mike, really helpful! clipol.org looks really interesting too. /Peter
On 25 June 2013 20:54, Mike Linksvayer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Peter Liljenberg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I understand that cc:Work and cc:License are separate, I'm really asking > how > > they relate to each others. Apologies for taking shortcuts in the > notation. > > > > My interpretation was that if a cc:Work linked to a cc:License with > > cc:require cc:Attribution, that put a very specific meaning on the > > properties of the cc:Work. It appears from the responses here that that > > isn't true. > > "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." :) > > > Is this closer to the intention of ccREL: > > > > 1) A tool can only use the properties of a cc:License to provide general > > information to a user, e.g. "this work requires attribution, for details > on > > what this means follow the link to the license". I.e. the tool can't > > discern between one of the standard CC licenses or another license with > > attribution requirements that are slightly different since cc:Attribution > > could apply to both. > > The tool could bake in additional knowledge, if that were pertinent. > Might not be... > > > 2) Even so, when a tool encounters cc:Work properties, it can assume that > > they should be used in an attribution along CC lines. If that turns out > to > > not be 100% legally correct, it is still much better than not attempting > to > > do any attribution. > > ...right, IMO. And the bar is very low; look at attribution/notice > typical in well funded publications using publicly licensed photos. > > > 3) If a tool want to provide more details, such as ensuring that the > cc:Work > > properties are used correctly in the attribution, the tool must itself > > encode the requirements of a specific license URI. > > Yes, ie bake in additional knowledge about specific licenses. Or > obtain more detailed descriptions of licenses elsewhere (probably > baking in where). http://clipol.org is an interesting new project in > this regard. > > > 4) If a tool want to compare licenses for equality, they have to use the > > license URI. > > Right, but equality can mean various things. The bug at the start of > this thread was using the wrong equality calculation to identify a > license. Might also be used to determine compatibility/allowable > licenses for remix -- in which case you need to identify individual > licenses and have more detailed descriptions than CC provides; again > clipol.org might be interesting. > > Mike >
_______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
