Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

[Nathan Yergler <nathan AT yergler.net>]

I don't believe there was any expectation that the RDF representation
could fully express the legal code of a license. I think that means
Maarten is correct.

Of course, there are tools out there that take the attribution
requirement and "just happen" to generate attribution text that
matches what the CC licenses require. I'd have to think about it more
to decide if that's a sane behavior or if they should be checking
something else before deciding to do that.

NRY


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Peter Liljenberg
<peter AT commonsmachinery.se> wrote:
> This reminds me of the question the other week about cc:attributionURL vs
> xmpRights:WebStatement, where the response was that cc:attributionURL was
> related to the legal code of the license even though that wasn't fully
> expressed in the ccREL description. That made it map to the semantics of
> xmpRights:WebStatement.
>
> cc:require cc:attribution seems to me to also be related to the legal code
> that specifies exactly what attribution means (e.g. 4b in
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode). Or is it intended to
> be the more generic term described in the RDF schema?
>
> /Peter
>
>
>
>
> On 24 June 2013 17:59, Maarten Zeinstra <mz AT kl.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jonas,
>>
>> To be clear, this is the description of the namespace:
>>
>> "credit be given to copyright holder and/or author" according to
>> view-source:https://creativecommons.org/schema.rdf
>>
>> So I read this as a binary that when present credit should be given. It
>> does not specify a way to do that, and I think it shouldn't as well.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Maarten
>>
>> --
>> Kennisland
>> | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 24, 2013, at 17:36 , Jonas Öberg <jonas AT coyote.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> here's a question from IRC which was left hanging. Wondering if anyone
>> here has any thoughts about it :)
>>
>> 09:14 <jonaso> Been looking at
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/372427 which uses ccREL cc:permits
>> and cc:requires to express licenses which are not CC licenses, ie., FAL.
>> They've coded FAL same as CC BY-SA
>> 09:14 <jonaso> I wonder if that's the intent: ns#Attribution has a
>> specific meaning in the CC vocabulary which is slightly different from 
>> FAL's
>> attribution requirement.
>> 09:15 <jonaso> So I wonder if we should think of ccREL ns#Attribution as
>> "requires some attribution, unspecified exactly how, what or when" or if
>> ns#Attribution should mean more exactly the terms of the CC licenses.
>> 09:16 <jonaso> In the latter case, I guess there should be a separate
>> vocabulary to express terms more closely to FAL and other licenses.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Jonas
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-devel mailing list
>> cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-devel mailing list
>> cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-devel mailing list
> cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
>