[OFL-discuss] [Openfontlibrary] Creative Commons style RDF and "Human Readable" versions of OFL?

Jon Phillips jon at rejon.org
Wed Nov 8 16:01:15 PST 2006


On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 16:42 -0500, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> Jon Phillips wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 03:03 +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The Open Font Library (OFLB) at www.openfontlibrary.org has a lively
> >> discussion on its mailing list, as the project is starting to gather
> >> stream, and the project is planning to use the Open Font License
> >> (OFL).
> >>
> >> OFLB is using the CMS system "ccHost" developed by Creative Commons.
> >>
> >> To properly integrate the OFL into ccHost, OFLB will need to develop
> >> Creative Commons style RDF and "Human Readable" versions of OFL.
> >>
> >> I hope this list will have some suggestions about how to most sensibly
> >> proceed with that :-)
> 
> [...]
> 
> > So, we need something similar to OFL, along the above lines, using
> > http://web.resource.org/cc/ as a guide for the permits and requires
> > sections.
> > 
> > The license is the final way to state what the specifics entail, but
> > licenses maybe be described with the above URL which explains the
> > permits and requires elements.
> > 
> > Does this make sense? Dave, would you like to take a stab at creating
> > the RDF to describe OFL? If you do, I will jump in afterwards (my brain
> > is tired right now ;)
> > 
> > Jon
> 
> Hi Dave, Jon et al,
> 
> Here's an attempt at expressing the OFL in Creative Commons terms and
> turning that into an html/RDF block:

Very cool!

> <!-- SIL Open Font License -->
> 
> <a rel="license" href="http://scripts.sil.org/OFL">
> <img alt=" SIL Open Font License"
> src="http://scripts.sil.org/cms/sites/nrsi/media/OFL_logo_rect_color.png"
> border="0" align="middle"></a>
> 
>         <i> This font family is released under the </i>
> <a rel="license" href="http://scripts.sil.org/OFL">SIL Open Font License
> </a>.
> 
> </!-- SIL Open Font License -->

That is good to see above, however, CC designed that mainly for webpages
that license content, so will just have to be clear if using that on an
html page what its for...


> <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
>     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
> <Work rdf:about="">
>    <license
> rdf:resource="http://scripts.sil.org/OFL/" />
>    <dc:type rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Font" />
>    <img alt="SIL Open Font License" src="http://scripts.sil.org/OFL"
> border="0"></a> B
> 
> </Work>
> 
> <License rdf:about="http://scripts.sil.org/OFL">
>    <permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction" />
>    <permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution" />
>    <permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/DerivativeWorks" />
>    <requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribution" />
>    <requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/ShareAlike" />
>    <requires
> rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/RenamingOfDerivatives" />
>    <requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/NoSellingByItself"
> />
> 
> </License>
> 
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> What do you think?
> Would something like that do the job?
> You comments and patches are welcome.

Yes, much...but you all should get your lawyer to look at and suggest
some clear names for the requires elements...

I would replace the last require with:

<prohibits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/PerItemSelling" />

We need some simpler legal terms for the above, but this is lawyer
territory here and will only help the clarity of this license...and,
this is not my advice from CC....just thoughts, to be clear (as I can't
tell you or give formal advice from them)...

> We might change some of the urls and create dedicated pages for this.

Yes, that is fine...and encourage even, as web.resource.org might not
want to add these conditions.

> The human readable bit would be:
> permits Reproduction/Distribution/DerivativeWorks
> requires Attribution/ShareAlike/RenamingOfDerivatives/NoSellingByItself

Right, this should have a prohibition for individual sale and not
requires for the "NoSellingByItself"

> So how can I help you test this?

Well, I think we need a lawyer to look at the new fields and clarify
legal terms for what the OFL license suggests...after that, I will get
some ppl. to look at as well...

> I guess we need little rounded icons for the extra permissions/requires
> as well as a a little rounded OFL-cc icon.

Yeah, it would be good to make a non-english centric icon for OFL that
clearly shows what this license allows with fonts...

> Thanks again for your very useful work on ccHost!

You too!

Jon

> 
-- 
Jon Phillips

San Francisco, CA
USA PH 510.499.0894
jon at rejon.org
http://www.rejon.org

MSN, AIM, Yahoo Chat: kidproto
Jabber Chat: rejon at gristle.org
IRC: rejon at irc.freenode.net



More information about the Openfontlibrary mailing list