[whatwg] [Fwd: Re: Helping people seaching for content filtered by license]
Nils Dagsson Moskopp
nils-dagsson-moskopp at dieweltistgarnichtso.net
Thu May 14 15:31:50 PDT 2009
sorry, forgot to cc the list
-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
> Von: Nils Dagsson Moskopp
> <nils-dagsson-moskopp at dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
> An: Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch>
> Betreff: Re: [whatwg] Helping people seaching for content filtered by
> license
> Datum: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:04:41 +0200
>
> Am Freitag, den 08.05.2009, 19:57 +0000 schrieb Ian Hickson:
> > * Tara runs a video sharing web site for people who want licensing
> > information to be included with their videos. When Paul wants to blog
> > about a video, he can paste a fragment of HTML provided by Tara
> > directly into his blog. The video is then available inline in his
> > blog, along with any licensing information about the video.
> >
> > (Really? A video sharing site dedicated to people who want licensing
> > information to be included with their videos? That's a pretty specific
> > audience, wow.)
> >
> > This can be done with HTML5 today. For example, here is the markup you
> > could include to allow someone to embed a video on their site while
> > including the copyright or license information:
> >
> > <figure>
> > <video src="http://example.com/videodata/sJf-ulirNRk" controls>
> > <a href="http://video.example.com/watch?v=sJf-ulirNRk">Watch</a>
> > </video>
> > <legend>
> > Pillar post surgery, starting to heal.
> > <small>© copyright 2008 Pillar. All Rights Reserved.</small>
> > </legend>
> > </figure>
>
> Seriously, I don't get it. Is there really so much entrenched (widely
> deployed, a mess, IE-style) software out there relying on @rel=license
> meaning "license of a single main content blob" that an unambigous
> (read: machine-readable) writeup of part licenses is impossible ? How
> about a possible future keyword, say @rel=content-license ?
>
> > The example above shows this for a movie, but it works as well for a
> > photo:
> >
> > <figure>
> > <img src="http://nearimpossible.com/DSCF0070-1-tm.jpg" alt="">
> > <legend>
> > Picture by Bob.
> > <small><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/legalcode">Creative
> > Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Generic License</a></small>
> > </legend>
> > </figure>
>
> Can I infer from this that an <a> in a <small> inside a <legend> is some
> kind of microformat for licensing information ? Crude, if you really
> mean it this way, but probably workable. Maybe this needs to be
> explicitely spelled out in the spec ?
>
> > Admittedly, if this scenario is taken in the context of the first
> > scenario, meaning that Bob wants this image to be discoverable through
> > search, but doesn't want to include it on a page of its own, then extra
> > syntax to mark this particular image up would be useful.
> >
> > However, in my research I found very few such cases. In every case where I
> > found multiple media items on a single page with no dedicated page, either
> > every item was licensed identically and was the main content of the page,
> > or each item had its own separate page, or the items were licensed under
> > the same license as the page. In all three of these cases, rel=license
> > already solves the problem today.
>
> Relying on linked pages just to get licensing information would be,
> well, massive overhead. Still, you are right - most blogs using many
> pictures have dedicated pages.
>
> > This discourages people from using
> > multiple licenses, of course, but that's actually a good thing, as it
> > discourages license proliferation.
>
> Actually, it discourages working along with perfectly good existing
> licenses as well. Like having CC-BY content on a CC-BY-SA site.
>
> > * Fred's browser can tell him what license a particular video on a site
> > he is reading has been released under, and advise him on what the
> > associated permissions and restrictions are (can he redistribute this
> > work for commercial purposes, can he distribute a modified version of
> > this work, how should he assign credit to the original author, what
> > jurisdiction the license assumes, whether the license allows the work
> > to be embedded into a work that uses content under various other
> > licenses, etc).
> >
> > Advising a user on the legal implications of a license is something that
> > needs trained professionals, but given a particular license, advice could
> > be provided in canned form. So it seems like this is already possible, the
> > user just has to select a license from a list of licenses. A user agent
> > could pre-select a license based on the value of the page's rel=license
> > link(s), or based on scanning the page for mention of a license, too.
>
> AFAIK, the CC namespace exists for this purpose and answers some fairly standard questions.
>
> > * When licensing a subpart of the page, existing implementations must
> > not just assume that the license applies to the whole page rather than
> > just part of it.
> >
> > This is resolved by not having a mechanism for machine-readably licensing
> > just part of a page, and instead putting such content on its own page,
> > which leads to a better experience anyway from a search perspective.
>
> Add a severely worse experience from a programmers standpoint. Software
> will need to scrape all linked documents - a browser add-on doing
> something with licensing information over a collection of items would
> suddenly be an enormous waste of HTTP requests.
>
> > In conclusion, it seems most of these use cases are already handled by the
> > current text in the spec and do not show a need for a more elaborate
> > scheme. The rel="license" feature in particular handles search adequately,
> > and is already deployed both in consumers and generators. Two areas where
> > we could add more syntax-level support would be in licensing subparts
> > explicitly, and in providing machine-readable licenses. The former seems
> > like an obvious need but actual deployed content doesn't seem to need it,
> > since most individually licensed works exist on pages of their own
> > already, or are covered by the same license as other works on the same
> > page.
>
> Well, this topic seems to be done then.
>
>
> *Sighs*
--
Nils Dagsson Moskopp
<http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
More information about the whatwg
mailing list