|
|
| (11 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | == Licenses ==
| + | #REDIRECT [[Liblicense]] |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
