dear Mike, thanks for your response, On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 09:58:38AM -0700, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > Certifying/determining status of works -- next thing we're working on, > including a PD assertion/certification that would help others > independently verify the status of a work, and collaboration with > projects like OpenLibrary and OKFN. > > Registries could support this work, but registries are hard to define. > See presentations and video from > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Creative_Commons_Technology_Summit_2008-06-18
I enjoyed your slides but they are a bit *too* thought-provoking to cover in a quick email. :) > > ... thus combining CC terms with a set of different DRM restrictions. > > So of course work on registration and *certification* of works > > serves equally well to close as it does to open. > > This is debatable. DRM requires local software that attempts to > control what a user can do with content. Historically the intersection > of DRM and digital rights description/expression/rights management > information has been just about nil. Ah, then I should be using the term "DRM" differently or not at all. In OpenGeoConsortium world they use "DRM" to apply to rights expression and management that is focused particularly on *services*. It is unfortunate branding, which is why they renamed their GeoDRM working group "GeoRM" - http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/geormwg In this worldview there is a "gatekeeper" service which sits in front of a data access/publishing service, handling authentication and negotiating terms of use. Even a public data source would have a "null restriction" by default. OGC folk go so far as to say "DRM is first a metadata-tracking problem.... Second, DRM is an enforcement problem" (the reference model linked at http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/requests/30 ) Their work in extending CC to express more restrictions represents the "flipside" to me - that a toolset made to communicate "open" rights is just as useful for closing them down. The tools look just the same. It reminds me that the work on RDF for the semantic web originates in part from PICS, the self-censorship expression language, as noted in http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/specbg.html > > I wonder to what extent CC's development of work in this area has been > > driven by approaches from restrictions-focused projects like this. > Not at all. Glad to hear it. > > "solutions" may be out there that serve the purposes of making it > > easier to find, reuse and have assurance of quality - *without* > > having this property of encouraging restriction and over-precision > > on the flipside? In one of your slides this is stated - #29 Issues of provenance are of particular relevance to copyright licensing on the web, but the decentralized web presents trust of agents and data as a general problem. A commons registry could evolve to address these problems beyond the scope of copyright. I think provenance - including both attribution and processing history that connects to other data sets - could be more useful in registry/repository world than copyright licensing. Trust is a huge word to use where quality assurance and future persistence are mostly what is needed. Well, "quality" is a huge word, too. I will restrain myself from rambling vaguely on at this point. cheers, jo -- _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
