|
|
| (10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Category:Developer]]
| | #REDIRECT [[Liblicense]] |
| [[Category:Operating System]]
| |
| [[Category:idea]]
| |
| [[Category:licenses]]
| |
| [[Category:specification]]
| |
| {{incomplete}}
| |
| | |
| == Licenses ==
| |
| | |
| All licenses should be allowed into this structure. T
| |
| | |
| === Questions ===
| |
| | |
| * What licenses should be allowed?
| |
| * Should licenses be weighted?
| |
| * How will they connect with mime-types and how will a system know which filetypes connect with which licenses?
| |
| | |
| === Naming ===
| |
| | |
| What is the best way to name licenses for inclusion.
| |
| | |
| Possibly this form:
| |
| | |
| <pre>
| |
| LICENSE_PROVIDER-LICENSENAME-FORM-VERSION.OPTIONAL_FILE_ENDING
| |
| </pre>
| |
| | |
| Then, for the three file types, this possibly would make sense:
| |
| | |
| <pre>
| |
| cc-attribution-machine-2.5.rdf
| |
| cc-attribution-human-2.5.txt
| |
| cc-attribution-lawyer-2.5.txt
| |
| </pre>
| |
| | |
| This way also, a system could have other versions of licenses, such as:
| |
| | |
| <pre>
| |
| cc-attribution-machine-2.5.rdf
| |
| cc-attribution-machine-2.5.xml
| |
| | |
| cc-attribution-human-2.5.txt
| |
| cc-attribution-human-2.5.html
| |
| cc-attribution-human-2.5.odt
| |
| | |
| cc-attribution-lawyer-2.5.txt
| |
| cc-attribution-lawyer-2.5.html
| |
| cc-attribution-lawyer-2.5.rtf
| |
| </pre>
| |
| | |
| === Forms ===
| |
| | |
| ==== Human-Readable ====
| |
| | |
| This would be the human readable commons deed that is included with a license.
| |
| | |
| ==== Lawyer-Readable ====
| |
| | |
| This would be the legalese for lawyers and courts to read that is specific and really the highest level (most abstract) version of a license.
| |
| | |
| ==== Machine-Readable ====
| |
| | |
| This is the digital version of a license that is to be read by software (machines).
| |
| | |
| == Operating Systems ==
| |
| | |
| === Linux ===
| |
| | |
| ==== Path =====
| |
| | |
| ===== System-level =====
| |
| | |
| /usr/share/licenses
| |
| | |
| ===== User-level =====
| |
| | |
| ~/.licenses/
| |
| | |
| ''Please help us fill this out :)''
| |
| | |
| === Mac OS X ===
| |
| | |
| ==== Path ====
| |
| | |
| ===== System-level =====
| |
| | |
| /Library/Application\ Support/Licenses
| |
| | |
| ===== User-level =====
| |
| | |
| ~/Library/Application\ Support/Licenses
| |
| | |
| === Windows ===
| |
| | |
| ==== Path ====
| |
| | |
| ===== System=level =====
| |
| | |
| C:\%COMMONFILES%\create
| |
| | |
| ===== User-level =====
| |
| | |
| C:\%APPDATA%\create (for local use)
| |
| | |
| == Filetype Mapping ==
| |
| | |
| There should be a simple mechanism for mapping known filetypes to types of licenses that can be used with a type of content. There should also be some mechanism for recognizing preferences and possible violations of licenses.
| |
| | |
| === Questions ===
| |
| | |
| * How does this fit in with mimetypes?
| |
| * How can these preferences be dealt with?
| |
| * Is dealing with possible violation too DRM-like?
| |
| | |
| == Preferences ==
| |
| | |
| This is a section TBD on how to deal with preferred licenses and also licenses whose filetype/mime-type mapping is not known.
| |
| | |
| == Offline vs. Online ==
| |
| | |
| There needs to be away to use web services (like [[Web_Services_Client_Implementations|CC Web Services]]) to get the most up-to-date versions of licenses and as a fallback, use the on-disk versions of licenses. Also, some people and systems might not have web access, so there is a definite need for a place for these files to exist in an operating system. Also, most software just includes a license for source code and they forget that the GNU GPL is not for content. Thus, having a local link to licenses would promote licensing individual content distributed in an operating system through a distro to license-up and be legal.
| |
| | |
| == TODO ==
| |
| | |
| * Flesh out [[#Offline vs. Online]] section
| |
| * Add more to the [[#Preferences]] section
| |
| * Need to get reviews of this spec
| |
| * Need to get reviews of the [[#Naming]] component of this spec.
| |
