Re: Content License Expression?

We also had an early request from the Creative Commons folks that the model
should explicitly say how licenses can be associated with resources.   Any
proposal here would need to be clear as to the extent of the license, e.g.
that it only covers the resource it is associated with and not any
resources otherwise referenced from that resource ... so a license on the
Annotation does not convey any rights regarding either Body or Target.

If we want to consider this in scope, then I can raise an issue and
proposal.


On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Should we specify a method for stating the license of quotations in
> relation to TextQuoteSelector (rashly assuming a license can be
> programmatically found for the target's contents)?
>
> Relatedly, I'm also wondering if we need this ability for the annotation
> and/or bodies themselves (if they're inlined at least).
>
> For instance, publicly visibile Hypothes.is annotation are released under
> the terms of the CreativeCommons.org CC0 license (essentially "Public
> Domain"). That said, we don't currently express that in the JSON anywhere
> (but would like too!), and if/when we do that, it would be best to *not*
> unintentionally state that the highlighted text (which is included in the
> TextQuoteSelector) be considered to be under that same license.
>
> We certainly accommodate this granularity now (with the improved multiple
> bodies work), but do we need to specify it explicitly? or leave that up to
> other vocabularies and implementations to work out?
>
> Thanks!
> Benjamin
> --
> Developer Advocate
> http://hypothes.is/
>



-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305