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

[Jon Phillips]

On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 00:18 +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> On 08/11/06, Nicolas Spalinger <nicolas_spalinger at sil.org> wrote:
> >
> > Here's an attempt at expressing the OFL in Creative Commons terms and
> > turning that into an html/RDF block:
> 
> Wow!
> 
> >
> > <!-- 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"
> 
> As you say:
> 
> > I guess we need little rounded icons for the extra permissions/requires
> > as well as a a little rounded OFL-cc icon.
> 
> CC3 are getting new icons so I guess we should wait for them, or knock
> out something that will do for now?

Well, since this is not affiliated with Creative Commons, there is no
reason to wait and I would strongly discourage applying the same look
and feel as CC's new icons for many reasons.

> > 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 -->
> >
> > <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" />
> 
> This resolves to http://dublincore.org/2006/08/28/dctype.rdf#Font and
> does not exist. How are we to get it to exist? :-)
> 
> >    <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.
> 
> This is a great contribution, I had a draft half done on my desktop,
> but this is just what I was doing :-)

Cool....teamwork!

> > We might change some of the urls
> 
> Only the last 2 web.resource.org URLs are broken. I'd like to contact
> AaronSW when we are ready and get him to add them - I'm sure he would
> :-)
> 
> Getting changes into dublincore.org maybe harder though? :-(
> 
> > and create dedicated pages for this.
> > The human readable bit would be:
> 
> Would that be contributed to CreativeCommons.org, so that when anyone
> visits /license there then in the drop down box under "Tell us the
> format of your work:" there is "Font" as well as
> Audio/Video/Image/Text/Interactive/Other?

No, CC doesn't want to get involved in the font space, and since neither
project is affiliated with CC, this would not be possible.

> CC does rebrand other licenses, like the GNU GPL at
> http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl and calls this a 'wrapper
> license' (I think) as they are adding the Human and RDF parts to the
> actual License text in the "CC deed".

Yes, that is right. CC is not on board to re-brand licenses. Rather, we
are just using this style of metadata/rdf to make the OFL license usable
by more advanced systems that deal with cc-style metadata (like ccHost
and future systems but other search engines, google, yahoo, etc)...

> Is this bundling of the OFL as part of CC something SIL would be happy
> with and want?

CC is not on board for this. However, this is something for SIL folks to
deliberate with Creative Commons about if they are interested in. At
present, CC is not interested in dealing with fonts, thus, I take this
as a silent nod for others to deal with the font license issues.

> > permits Reproduction/Distribution/DerivativeWorks
> > requires Attribution/ShareAlike/RenamingOfDerivatives/NoSellingByItself
> 
> Okay, AFAICT the new term titles are "RenamingOfDerivatives" and
> "NoSellingByItself".
> 
> **This is the biggest thing about the proposed CC deed.**
> 
> Could we brainstorm other labels of these?

Yes, we really need a lawyer to look at these and select the most apt
and what is also in line with the other conditions.

> ReservedNames
> RenameDerivatives
> DerivativesMustBeRenamed
> MustBeRenamed
> MustRename

I like "RenameDerivatives." However, there might be legal issues with
the use of "name" vs. "title". Are there any lawyers up in here to help
us ?

> NoStandaloneSale
> MustBeBundled
> MustBundle

I believe collection is the word used legally in the USA for this. So,
something like:

InCollection

And, in the RDF would be something like:

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




> Everyone else? :-)

Pong!

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