Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

[Peter Liljenberg <peter AT commonsmachinery.se>]

I understand that cc:Work and cc:License are separate, I'm really asking how they relate to each others. Apologies for taking shortcuts in the notation.

My interpretation was that if a cc:Work linked to a cc:License with cc:require cc:Attribution, that put a very specific meaning on the properties of the cc:Work. It appears from the responses here that that isn't true.

Is this closer to the intention of ccREL:

1) A tool can only use the properties of a cc:License to provide general information to a user, e.g. "this work requires attribution, for details on what this means follow the link to the license".  I.e. the tool can't discern between one of the standard CC licenses or another license with attribution requirements that are slightly different since cc:Attribution could apply to both.

2) Even so, when a tool encounters cc:Work properties, it can assume that they should be used in an attribution along CC lines. If that turns out to not be 100% legally correct, it is still much better than not attempting to do any attribution.

3) If a tool want to provide more details, such as ensuring that the cc:Work properties are used correctly in the attribution, the tool must itself encode the requirements of a specific license URI.

4) If a tool want to compare licenses for equality, they have to use the license URI.

Thanks for your patience with my questions,

  Peter

On 24 June 2013 23:36, Mike Linksvayer <ml AT gondwanaland.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:36 AM, 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.

This is separate from discussion about cc:attributionName/URL, which
are work properties. cc:Attribution is a cc:Requirement which is in
the range of cc:requires which has a domain of cc:License.
cc:Attribution should be thought of as "requires some attribution,
unspecified exactly how, what or when".

The 2009(!) bug you cite is due to Inkscape apparently identifying
license by its coarse requirements/prohibitions/permissions rather
than by a canonical identifier for an individual license, as it
should.

Mike

_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list
cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel