ml at creativecommons.org
Fri Jan 23 12:28:10 EST 2004
As noted on our weblog yesterday
<http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3968> warranties, currently
mandatory, will be disclaimed in a new version of the CC licenses.
We'll have a protocol for adding warranties if desired.
Here's the beginning of a stab at the metadata side of such a protocol:
The new versions open up the possibility of offering arbitrary
warranties, written by CC or not. If the warranty is just a URI in the
metadata, it could refer a form document hosted by CC all the way to a
work/licensor-specific bonded attestation(?) hosted by some rights
I think we can do this simply by adding a "warranty" element, used as
"license" is currently.
<license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
<warranty rdf:resource="http://rightsrus.com/cleared?id=dcfdb6d518" />
This doesn't explicitly tie the warranty to the license (in metadata) or
to the entity offering the license, but we don't make explicit who is
offering a license either (if a cc:Agent is present it might be safe to
assume that it is making the offer, but the relationship isn't explicit
in the RDF). Which is to argue that this simple warranty expression is ok.
In order to complete this protocol should we define a base set of
properties a Warranty might have (as we have done (necessarily) with
License characteristics)? I don't have any thoughts on what those
properties might be, would welcome suggestions. I don't think we need
to thoroughly define a Warranty vocabulary in order to move forward.
So what I am minimally proposing [optional]
A copyright warranty for the resource[, a structured cc:Warranty.
A warranty is described by the features it offers.
Critisize please. (I just gave you a really easy one.)
More information about the cc-metadata