On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Dr. Peter Troxler <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd certainly like to disagree with Nathan K on his second point > On 8 Apr 2010, at 18:56 , Nathan Kinkade wrote: > >> 2) I personally would rather a plugin not leverage LicenseChooser.js, >> but support only the "Unported" licenses. This should greatly >> simplify the plugin, making necessary only a single call the CC API to >> find what the latest version of the Unported licenses are. Other >> will/may disagree with me on this, and it is just my personal view on >> it so it shouldn't be taken as me setting any guidelines on the >> project. > > I understand your point from a complexity and numbers-of-API-calls > perspective -- but this is the most irrelevant one. > > (1) For users, having access to the ported licenses is imho crucial: > copyright legislation is still not really harmonized around the globe, and > license porting at least tries to account for that. Bloggers (i.e. content > creators and hence licensors) typically act from a local basis. > > (2) Jurisdictions put in an awful lot of work and brains to port licences > (and this process is not always as smooth as they wish, as far as I can hear, > e.g. in working with CC HQ) -- imho it would be a slap in their face of legal > teams worldwide to just discard their work because ...err... programming was > easier and API load smaller > > (3) The term "unported" is an euphemism at best: it means US. We all know, > that the US of A are trying to impose their version of law, order and > copyright on everybody on this planet -- ACTA is their most recent and most > ignominous plot. I find that CC should not and must not mimick this > behaviour. > > just my 2c (well 3c actually) > > / Peter
Peter, It looks like you may have inadvertently replied only to me with the above, so I'm just looping cc-devel back into the thread. Nathan _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
