On Thursday, March 12, 2015, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Send cc-devel mailing list submissions to > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cc-devel digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Fwd: [cc-staff] CC is hiring - seeking software developer > (Matt Lee) > 2. Re: We'd like your feedback on our proposed new contributor > agreement for The List app (Ben Finney) > 3. ccREL question (Maarten Zeinstra) > 4. Re: ccREL question (Mike Linksvayer) > 5. Re: ccREL question (Maarten Zeinstra) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:40:49 -0500 > From: Matt Lee <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > To: "[email protected] <javascript:;> devel" < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > Subject: [cc-devel] Fwd: [cc-staff] CC is hiring - seeking software > developer > Message-ID: > < > cabgqpf7frgctwcxsua8lb1xqp_kfcqk9tsorvuehxjhgko9...@mail.gmail.com > <javascript:;>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Come work with me :) > > --- > Matt Lee > Creative Commons > Boston, MA, USA > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ryan Merkley | Creative Commons <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > Date: Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM > Subject: [cc-staff] CC is hiring - seeking software developer > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > > > Hello friends of CC, > > We're doubling the size of of development team! With the generous > support of the Hewlett Foundation, we'll be hiring a second developer > at CC to work on one of our core 2015 strategic goals: improved > discovery, curation, use and re-use of the commons. > > Please help us in our search by taking 2 minutes right now to share > our post in your networks on social, or to forward this e-mail to > someone you know who would like to join our team. > > http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/44802 > > Thanks, > Ryan > > New job at CC: Software developer > > Matt Lee, January 28th, 2015 > > Today, we?re opening up a new job posting, for a developer. This > person will work with our education team and existing technical lead > to develop tools that facilitate the discovery, curation, use and > re-use of freely available online content. > > The developer?s tasks will include the development of an online > catalog of open education resource (OER) materials to facilitate > discovery, curation, use and re-use, and content analytics. We?re > really excited about this project, which will most certainly have > applications across the commons. > > >From the job description: > > Creative Commons is a global nonprofit organization focused on > enabling the open commons of knowledge to grow and flourish. Our work > crosses multiple sectors of creativity and knowledge ? from > photography, to music, to open educational resources, copyright > reform, and open data. Today the commons includes over 880 million > CC-licensed works, and we expect to pass 1 billion works in 2015. > > Are you excited about powering the technical infrastructure of > Creative Commons? Learn more and apply. > > > -- > > Ryan Merkley > CEO, Creative Commons > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > +1 416.802.0662 > @ryanmerkley > > Please make a donation: https://donate.creativecommons.org > > > _______________________________________________ > cc-staff mailing list > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:09:22 +1100 > From: Ben Finney <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > Subject: Re: [cc-devel] We'd like your feedback on our proposed new > contributor agreement for The List app > Message-ID: <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Matt Lee <[email protected] <javascript:;>> writes: > > > The List is a new web app and Android app from Creative Commons. We're > > developing it in the open, under a free software license. We'd like to > > get third party contributions, and we have an agreement that we're > > proposing that'll do that. > > Please don't ask for a unilateral copyright assignment; not even a > ?licensing agreement? of this kind. It is hostile to the level field > normally created by free licensing. > > Instead, please just require that the work is licensed under the same > license your organisation will be granting (?inbound = outbound?). > > More explanation of why CLAs are not desirable is at > <URL:http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/09/do-not-need-cla.html>. > > -- > \ ?What I have to do is see, at any rate, that I do not lend | > `\ myself to the wrong which I condemn.? ?Henry Thoreau, _Civil | > _o__) Disobedience_ | > Ben Finney > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:34:31 +0100 > From: Maarten Zeinstra <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > To: "[email protected] <javascript:;> devel" < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > Subject: [cc-devel] ccREL question > Message-ID: <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi all, > > I am working with a collections of international heritage institutions > (Europeana and DPLA) that wants to make a clearer classification of in > copyright right works. Basically we want to create a neutral namespace > based on the Europeana Rights Statements ( > http://pro.europeana.eu/share-your-data/rights-statement-guidelines/available-rights-statements > < > http://pro.europeana.eu/share-your-data/rights-statement-guidelines/available-rights-statements>). > Mapping this space of restrictions helps re-users find the niches in which > they still use the tagged works and know when works will become available > for re-use. > > The group is now designing the underlying metadata of these rights > statements and are researching the use of ccREL. They have some trouble > with the definition of cc:License. Included below I paraphrase their > critique. I?m wondering if there is still anyone on this list that can > provide some valuable feedback on this. > > > [..] cc:License really strongly hints at "real" licenses, while CC has a > broader interpretation ("a set of requests/permissions to users of a Work, > e.g. a copyright license, the public domain, information for > distributors?.) and uses it also for Public Domain Mark ( > https://github.com/creativecommons/license.rdf/tree/master/cc/licenserdf/licenses > < > https://github.com/creativecommons/license.rdf/tree/master/cc/licenserdf/licenses>, > PDM at > https://github.com/creativecommons/license.rdf/blob/master/cc/licenserdf/licenses/creativecommons.org_publicdomain_mark_1.0_.rdf > < > https://github.com/creativecommons/license.rdf/blob/master/cc/licenserdf/licenses/creativecommons.org_publicdomain_mark_1.0_.rdf > >) > > This may make the choice of cc:License less natural for our audience of > data providers and re-users. > > The CC REL RDFS <http://creativecommons.org/schema.rdf> is also a bit > contradictory, as cc:License is described as a subclass of > dmci:LicenseDocument, which feel wrong because dmci:LicenseDocument seems > more restrictive than cc:License (cc:License should just be a subclass or > equivalent class to dcmi:RightsStatement) > > > > We sense that dcterms:RightsStatements is a better fit, but want to > clarify ccREL approach. > > > > Related work: > > ODRL uses odrl:Policy ( > https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/#section-2 < > https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/#section-2>) > > ODRS uses odrs:RightsStatement. Interestingly ODRS de-couple statements > from license, i.e. it seems that in most case one needs one instance of > each class, see > https://github.com/theodi/open-data-licensing/blob/master/guides/publisher-guide.md > < > https://github.com/theodi/open-data-licensing/blob/master/guides/publisher-guide.md > >) > > > What does the list suggest we do in this project? Should we adopt > CC:License or is it better to use odrs:RightsStatement or odrl:policy? > > Cheers, > > Maarten Zeinstra > > -- > Kennisland | www.kl.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-devel/attachments/20150309/a7f73208/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 21:56:38 -0700 > From: Mike Linksvayer <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > Subject: Re: [cc-devel] ccREL question > Message-ID: <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > On 03/09/2015 05:34 AM, Maarten Zeinstra wrote: > > What does the list suggest we do in this project? Should we adopt > > CC:License or is it better to use odrs:RightsStatement or odrl:policy? > > dcterms:RightsStatement > > IIRC CC stuck with license/License for PDM when that was introduced so > that the (mostly theoretical, and likely doing regexps on a page rather > than parsing RDF) consumer would not have to know about another > property/class. But arguably CC REL ought have been (or ought be still) > updated such that cc:license is a subproperty of dcterms:rights rather > than dcterms:license and cc:License a subclass of > dcterms:RightsStatement rather than dcterms:LicenseDocument. > > Again IIRC dcterms:RightsStatement and LicenseDocument did not exist > until 2008. Had they existed in 2002, I guess the vocabulary CC > introduced (later branded as CC REL) would have used one of them > directly rather than introducing cc:License. Which brings us back to the > answer to your question. > > Mike > > p.s. I'm using dcterms: for precision and because I note the EDM > document does, though one of my super tiny pet peeves > <http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2014/02/04/one-dc/> concerns never using > DCES 1.1 for anything (all its terms are mirrored in dcterms) and thus > only/always using dc: prefix for http://purl.org/dc/terms/ > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:31:14 +0100 > From: Maarten Zeinstra <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > To: Mike Linksvayer <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Cc: [email protected] <javascript:;> > Subject: Re: [cc-devel] ccREL question > Message-ID: <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Thanks Mike! > > So you would actually advise not using the CC:License term in this case? > > Also a more general comment towards the CC Global. Do you have any > interest in structurally pushing/updating CCrel or is it in your interests > to not further that data standard? > > Cheers, > > Maarten > -- > Kennisland | www.kl.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra > > > > > On 11 Mar 2015, at 5:56 , Mike Linksvayer <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > On 03/09/2015 05:34 AM, Maarten Zeinstra wrote: > >> What does the list suggest we do in this project? Should we adopt > >> CC:License or is it better to use odrs:RightsStatement or odrl:policy? > > > > dcterms:RightsStatement > > > > IIRC CC stuck with license/License for PDM when that was introduced so > > that the (mostly theoretical, and likely doing regexps on a page rather > > than parsing RDF) consumer would not have to know about another > > property/class. But arguably CC REL ought have been (or ought be still) > > updated such that cc:license is a subproperty of dcterms:rights rather > > than dcterms:license and cc:License a subclass of > > dcterms:RightsStatement rather than dcterms:LicenseDocument. > > > > Again IIRC dcterms:RightsStatement and LicenseDocument did not exist > > until 2008. Had they existed in 2002, I guess the vocabulary CC > > introduced (later branded as CC REL) would have used one of them > > directly rather than introducing cc:License. Which brings us back to the > > answer to your question. > > > > Mike > > > > p.s. I'm using dcterms: for precision and because I note the EDM > > document does, though one of my super tiny pet peeves > > <http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2014/02/04/one-dc/> concerns never using > > DCES 1.1 for anything (all its terms are mirrored in dcterms) and thus > > only/always using dc: prefix for http://purl.org/dc/terms/ > > _______________________________________________ > > cc-devel mailing list > > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > cc-devel mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel > > > ------------------------------ > > End of cc-devel Digest, Vol 99, Issue 1 > *************************************** > -- Kyaw
_______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
