Re: for those who want "free only" buttons

On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 01:31 -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> <quote who="Mike Linksvayer"
date="Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:20:11PM -0800">
> > You can always use no anchortext or hide the link
with css, but I
> > suspect given how well exploited these are that
search engines are smart
> > enough to throw away such links.
> 
> That's a good point. Do you think they would do this
categorically (and
> even for doing limited searches for just works under a
permissive
> license)?

I don't know.  I wouldn't rely on it working even if it
seems to -- it's
just asking for breakage given that any aggregator has to
constantly
tune their anti-spam measures.

> > On freedomdefined.org you have two license links
in the footer, so it
> > would be easy to change just one of those.
> 
> Yes. I'm less worried about what we do on
freedomdefined.org and more
> worried about what we encourage other to do. I don't
want to suggest
> that people do anything that it would make it harder to
find free works.
> 
> I'm really just trying to understand what search
engines for free
> content are actually doing so that I understand what
the constraints
> in play are.

I'm not privy to the details of how search engines treat CC
notices.
All I can say for certain is that both Google and Yahoo! can
deal with
links directly to CC license deeds qualified with
rel="license".  My
speculation about spam-fighting methods above is just that.

Regarding what you encourage others to do, it looks like
you're
currently providing buttons without any recommended usage.  
This is
probably not a good thing as someone could take the button
without
linking directly to the CC license deed or e.g.,
http:
//freedomdefined.org/Licenses/CC-BY-SA-2.5 (hmmm, that
doesn't
exist), which means one can't tell which license they are
actually using
(no version specified, which can be very important).

Whatever use you do recommend should include a link to the
relevant CC
license deed.

BTW it is not clear to me whether you consider jurisdiction
ports of BY
and BY-SA free -- I do see "national adaptions"
at
http://fr
eedomdefined.org/Licenses#The_grid -- but if this is the
case
then a) you really need to facilitate people linking to the
relevant CC
license deed or create a whole lot of URLs on
freedomdefined.org

If I were you I would encourage people to use the standard
CC
buttons/link and a free button that could be placed
alongside the CC
license button and would link to something like
http://freedomdefined
.org/check

The code at that URL would scrape the referrer.  If content
at the
referrer includes a link to an approved license, the user
gets a page
explaining why the license is free, if not they get warned
of a bogus
usage of the free button and encouraged to use a really free
license.

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

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

<quote who="Mike Linksvayer" date="Wed,
Feb 14, 2007 at 08:04:27PM +0000">
> All I can say for certain is that both Google and
Yahoo! can deal with
> links directly to CC license deeds qualified with
rel="license".

Great. That's good to know.

> Regarding what you encourage others to do, it looks
like you're
> currently providing buttons without any recommended
usage.

Oh. We say, "these are just first drafts of how such
buttons could
look," which I thought implied that they weren't really
ready to be used
since they are not finished yet.

> This is probably not a good thing as someone could take
the button
> without linking directly to the CC license deed or
e.g.,
> http:
//freedomdefined.org/Licenses/CC-BY-SA-2.5 (hmmm, that
doesn't
> exist), which means one can't tell which license they
are actually
> using (no version specified, which can be very
important).

None of them exist yet. We're currently soliciting buttons
from people
who are more artistic than the current group of moderators.

> Whatever use you do recommend should include a link to
the relevant CC
> license deed.

Absolutely. I'll walk away from this conversation with
that.

> BTW it is not clear to me whether you consider
jurisdiction ports of
> BY and BY-SA free -- I do see "national
adaptions" at
> http://fr
eedomdefined.org/Licenses#The_grid -- but if this is the
case
> then a) you really need to facilitate people linking to
the relevant
> CC license deed or create a whole lot of URLs on
freedomdefined.org.

Yes. Thanks for pointing this out. We'll make sure this is
handled.

> If I were you I would encourage people to use the
standard CC
> buttons/link and a free button that could be placed
alongside the CC
> license button and would link to something like
> http://freedomdefined
.org/check
> 
> The code at that URL would scrape the referrer.  If
content at the
> referrer includes a link to an approved license, the
user gets a page
> explaining why the license is free, if not they get
warned of a bogus
> usage of the free button and encouraged to use a really
free license.

That's a nice idea for a tool.  The moderators of the Free
Cultural
Works Definition will need to discuss what it is that we
will actualy
recommend and what we offer.

Regards,
Mako


-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
makoatdot.cc
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
far as society is free to use the results. --RMS
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community