Re: for those who want "free only" buttons

On Wednesday 14 February 2007 12:20 am, Mike Linksvayer
wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 22:42 -0500, Benj. Mako Hill
wrote:
> > <quote who="Mike Linksvayer"
date="Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 05:27:51PM
> > -0800">
> >
> > > http://fr
eedomdefined.org/Logos_and_buttons
> > >
> > > I would strongly recommend users (including
the Freedomdefined site)
> > > linking directly to the relevant CC license
deed as this is what is
> > > used by Google and Yahoo! to identify
licensed content.
> >
> > That's a very good point.
> >
> > I thought the RDF data was supposed to handle
this?
>
> In theory it could, but search engines are not
interested in retrieving
> and parsing yet another file.  MozCC will, but it is
suboptimal for
> other reasons as well -- metadata separated from
content for humans
> tends to be spam or stale.
>
> So the current best practice (and usable by Google,
Yahoo!, MozCC) is to
> annotate the visible link with rel="license"
(denoting a licensing
> relationship; we don't just happen to be linking to a
URL that happens
> to be a license), which you can think of as the
rel-license microformat
> or producing a "<> :license <license
uri> ." triple if you prefer RDF.

Mike, could you give a little clear write up on what current
best practice is? 
I have read the recent relevant posts but think I must not
have understood.

How dod the search engines identify licensed content? By
links back to the CC 
license pages?

So if a site is licensed BY-SA and points to BY-NC songs,
and a person 
searches for BY-SA music, wil the engines return this page
as a result? I run 
into issues like that often.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Hello all,

I have a bit of a different comment regarding the 'free
only' buttons, 
which is based on the general assumption that for an average
user this 
whole licensing issue is extremely confusing and they tend /
decide to 
ignore it. For instance, and I wish we had research on this,
I think 
that most people, when seeing a CC license, stop at a vague

understanding that it has something to do with the right to
freely reuse 
- but everything else is for them 'fine print'.

So same as a proliferation of free licenses, a proliferation
of logos 
won't be helpful either. There's a lot of graphic clutter
strewn around 
sidebars already.

I would therefore propose for the 'freedom defined' project
to instead 
use, at least in the case of CC licenses, the CC logo, with
the 'free 
license' round rainbow logo alongside of it.

Generally speaking, I think we live in a little 'license
geek ghetto' 
and rarely peek outside - anyone's been doing the equivalent
of a 
usability study of these things? Or are we just designing
all these 
logos and definitions and so on to satisfy legitimate, but
still 
radically marginal needs?

best,

Alek Tarkowski

PS. Why doesn't GPL have a licensing logo yet? Seems like
such a no-brainer.

-- 
koordynator / Public Lead
Creative Commons Polska / Poland

(+48) 889 660 444
http://creativecommons.pl
skype:alektarkowski


_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 07:20 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 February 2007 12:20 am, Mike Linksvayer
wrote:
> > So the current best practice (and usable by
Google, Yahoo!, MozCC) is to
> > annotate the visible link with
rel="license" (denoting a licensing
> > relationship; we don't just happen to be linking
to a URL that happens
> > to be a license), which you can think of as the
rel-license microformat
> > or producing a "<> :license <license
uri> ." triple if you prefer RDF.
> 
> Mike, could you give a little clear write up on what
current best practice is? 
> I have read the recent relevant posts but think I must
not have understood.
> 
> How dod the search engines identify licensed content?
By links back to the CC 
> license pages?

More or less, qualified with rel="license"

> So if a site is licensed BY-SA and points to BY-NC
songs, and a person 
> searches for BY-SA music, wil the engines return this
page as a result? I run 
> into issues like that often.

Yes, this is a problem with inexact metadata and using
search engines
that index at the level of web pages only.

On the metadata front, metadata for an object (e.g., mp3)
that is not a
web page can be specified with RDFa -- see
http://wiki.crea
tivecommons.org/RDFa and for an example, view source on
htt
p://ccmixter.org/media/view/media/remix/latest or view
the page with
Songbird with MozCC installed.  There's also a possibility
that someday
a "media microformat" will be defined which
includes support for
licensing, see http://microfo
rmats.org/wiki/licensing for some high
level discussion, most of which is not actually
microformat-specific.
License info for specific objects may also be conveyed in
feeds, see
http://wi
ki.creativecommons.org/Syndication

Buf for search to work in the way that you want there needs
to be a
consumer for any of these methods of annotation.  AFAIK http://owlmm.com
is the only one so far (importing music to be searched via
feeds).  I'm
reasonably confident things will get much better in this
vein this year.
The other searches available via http://search.creat
ivecommons.org and
documented at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CcSearch_implementations

are doing web page or internal database searches.

-- 
  
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community