Bruce,
Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> From a conversation about a new effort to add a Creative Commons
> extension to OOo; I just mentioned our work to them, and reply below ...
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> Date: October 25, 2006 8:38:01 AM EDT
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [ext-CC] Re: CC extension
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2006, at 3:49 AM, Malte Timmermann wrote:
>>
>>> So IMHO:
>>> - If the license is only a link in the document, pointing to cc.org,
>>> and
>>> you just want to remember somewhere that a license was added, use
>>> meta data.
>>> - If you want to store a local copy of the license, so people can
>>> see it
>>> w/o being online, store it in some license.xml stream in META-INF, next
>>> to the signatures.
>>
>>
>> I think this is a false choice (metadata vs. local copy). The
>> metadata system would support both options. So you add this to your
>> metadata file:
>>
>> <cc:license
>> rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/"/>
>>
>> If you want, then include the RDF files as well in the package (per
>> above):
>>
>> <License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/">
>> <permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction"/>
>> <permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution"/>
>> <requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice"/>
>> <requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribution"/>
>> <permits
>> rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/DerivativeWorks"/>
>> <requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/ShareAlike"/>
>> </License>
>>
>> My point is there isn't really a need since the file is available on
>> the web.
>>
Sigh.
Sorry, the "file is available on the web" is only a sufficient answer if
and only if:
1. The file is always going to be available.
2. The file is never going to change.
3. The file can be verified to not have changed.
I don't include you (Bruce) in this observation but to think otherwise
is simply goofy optimism that is inconsistent with history both prior to
and since the web.
How do I verify the reference to the book of the Wars of Yahweh in
Numbers 21:14? My copy seems to be missing.
Or, if you want something more recent, what of ODA (Office Document
Architecture)? An ISO standard from the 1980's that was simply discarded
when it wasn't renewed. (Fear not! I happen to have obtained an
electronic copy that has been backed up to both electronic and print
media. I need to get around to getting permission to deposit a copy with
a library archive as ISO still has the copyright on the text.)
Or, what of current 404's?
Sure, a file possibly existed at all those locations, maybe, but we
don't know now what content they may have had on any particular date, if
any.
Note that is it *insufficient* to say that is a "social problem" or
similar efforts to pretend it's not a problem. Simply washing one's
hands of a problem, like the identity problem is simply to stick one's
head in the sand (sanitized in case some child stumbles across this
post) and to pretend the problem isn't real.
I understand that for some purposes we may choose to treat URI's as
though they are meaningful. But, that should be with a knowing
assumption of the risk that they in fact may not be meaningful at all,
now or when we most need them to be meaningful and to conduct ourselves
accordingly.
For my part, I would always include a license as what you call a "local
copy." And would rest better if the file where it was included could be
digitally signed. No absolute guarantee but safer than simply assuming
some URI would be meaningful during the date of death plus 75 years that
is the term of copyright in some places, for example.
It is a real problem and not one we can simply wish away.
Apologies for the outburst. I have been working on a very, very long
draft of a standard with short, almost cryptic element names and that
has made me cranky. (Or more so than usual.) :-) I would write a script
to replace the element names with meaningful names but that would
probably bulk it up by several thousand pages. :-( I don't want to kill
any more forests than necessary to have a hard copy to work from. An old
academic prejudice but I don't think you can adequately proofread from
electronic copy any more than you can cook from a recipe book. It can be
done but the results in either case doesn't taste quite the same. I
know, I know, newspaper production companies, news magazines, etc., do
it all the time. Simply proves my point. ;-)
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
