On 5/1/06, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, Jon, others- > From reading the spec doc, it really feels like you need to flesh out > the goals and use cases a bit more before you consider the > requirements and implementation details. *Why* do you want licenses in > the OS? Is it to track the license of everything installed on the OS? > Give a list of licenses for users to choose from when creating > content? Do license validation? It seems like you need to think > through those issues a bit more before fleshing things out more. It is > possible you guys have had this discussion elsewhere and I've missed > it, but if so,
Doh! 'but if so, it would be good to document it in the wiki.' > On 5/1/06, Jon Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Licenses_in_Operating_Systems_Specification > > > > Here are the associated challenges: > > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Include_licenses_in_operating_systems > > It is, by the way, completely unclear what the difference between > these pages are, at least from the URL ;) > > Some more specific thoughts: > * "What licenses should be allowed?" Why would any valid licenses be > disallowed? If the licensor of the code/content/whatever thinks it is > a license, then it will need to be represented, no? > > * "Should licenses be weighted?" You mean, should users (or the > system) be able to indicate that some licenses are preferred in > certain situations? Or do you mean something else? > > * "How will they connect with mime-types and how will a system know > which filetypes connect with which licenses?" This seems like > overthinking to me- I'm trying hard to think of a situation where (1) > the user knows enough to meaningfully discern between license types > but (2) would be overwhelmed by the list of licenses. Seems unlikely. > [That and most licenses don't claim to be valid only for specific > mime-types.] > > * LICENSE_PROVIDER-LICENSENAME-FORM-VERSION.OPTIONAL_FILE_ENDING > > You might look to the java-style org.creativecommons or org.fsf for > the 'license provider' portion of this. > > * 'Forms': This is probably obvious, but CC is the only license on > earth that provides for all three of these forms. So make sure the > system supports them, but make sure not to make them mandatory. > > * "Provide an installation system for this that is cross-platform" > nononono! Very good minds, with more relevant motivations, have > foundered on this issue. Just provide simple tarballs, or zipfiles, or > whatever, that apps can install themselves if they need the licenses > and discover they aren't present on the system. > > * "Is dealing with possible violation too DRM-like?" > > (1) Validation is not part of a data spec. :) Solve the basic data > problem first; and give it a shot to make sure it is extensible if > people want to put in the bits that would be necessary for validation. > The fact that no one is even trying to do validation right now should > be a suggestion about its relative priority :) > (2) It is DRM-like, in the sense that both fair use and license > incompatibility are usually judgment calls. If lawyers can't agree > whether or not licenses are compatible (see: openssl license) then > software certainly can't. So you have the option of making licensing > decisions for the user (which is the path the DRM industries have > taken in the fair use case) or you can do the more limited (but > potentially still very useful) 'warn but don't prevent' approach- > 'your code might not be legally acceptable- continue anyway? Y/N' > > Anyway, this certainly seems like a very worthwhile effort, and there > are clearly some good thinking here, but I strongly encourage writing > down your goals and use cases some more before going further with the > details. > > HTH- > Luis > _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
