[cc-community] wrong license info / logo
claude.almansi at bluewin.ch
Thu Feb 15 21:23:31 EST 2007
Thank you for the explanation, Tom. I just noticed another problem on a
blog I used to be the main person in charge of,
http://adisi.livejournal.com. Either I didn't know how to, or it was not
possible to, insert the license code in the navigation template. The
fact is that I made a link to the
http://www.creativecommons.it/Licenze/Deed/by-nc-sa page among the
useful links on the word "licenza creative commons".
Then the Italian by-nc-sa license moved to
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/deed.it, to which the
old address redirected for quite a while, if I remember correctly.
But now, if you go to the old,
http://www.creativecommons.it/Licenze/Deed/by-nc-sa address, you get a
page that says "accesso negato", access denied.
I wonder if the same happened with other national sites that used to
host the licenses, after they were transfered to creativecommons.org
tomislav medak ha scritto:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Claude Almansi wrote:
>> Then some content hosting sites offer you the possibility to license
>> your content without going to creativecommons.org/license: flickr,
>> blip.tv, archive.org; blogging tools too: for instance the blogs at
>> digitaldivide.net, but other ones too.
> oh, i was thinking of mentioning that, but forgot - suboptimal lisensing
> on sites like flickr with no metadata.
>> In these cases, the result is a button linked to the deed for humans,
>> but you do not actually get a full registration code with the name of
>> the author, the title of the work etc.
>> Does this mean that these licenses linking to the deed, but without
>> registration info, are invalid?
> i guess indicating the licese choice even without linking should qualify
> as valid. it indicates the author's choice, but doesn't point the user
> to the explanation putting the burden on him and doesn't make use of the
> technological opportunities offered by CC licensing technology.
> the problem might arise when it's not clear what object/work the
> licensor is licensing, if there are more objects/works that are part of
> a collection.
More information about the cc-community