[cc-community] for those who want "free only" buttons

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Feb 14 07:20:14 EST 2007


On Wednesday 14 February 2007 12:20 am, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 22:42 -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > <quote who="Mike Linksvayer" date="Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 05:27:51PM
> > -0800">
> >
> > > http://freedomdefined.org/Logos_and_buttons
> > >
> > > I would strongly recommend users (including the Freedomdefined site)
> > > linking directly to the relevant CC license deed as this is what is
> > > used by Google and Yahoo! to identify licensed content.
> >
> > That's a very good point.
> >
> > I thought the RDF data was supposed to handle this?
>
> In theory it could, but search engines are not interested in retrieving
> and parsing yet another file.  MozCC will, but it is suboptimal for
> other reasons as well -- metadata separated from content for humans
> tends to be spam or stale.
>
> So the current best practice (and usable by Google, Yahoo!, MozCC) is to
> annotate the visible link with rel="license" (denoting a licensing
> relationship; we don't just happen to be linking to a URL that happens
> to be a license), which you can think of as the rel-license microformat
> or producing a "<> :license <license uri> ." triple if you prefer RDF.

Mike, could you give a little clear write up on what current best practice is? 
I have read the recent relevant posts but think I must not have understood.

How dod the search engines identify licensed content? By links back to the CC 
license pages?

So if a site is licensed BY-SA and points to BY-NC songs, and a person 
searches for BY-SA music, wil the engines return this page as a result? I run 
into issues like that often.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)


More information about the cc-community mailing list