- From: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 23:43:47 +1000
- To: Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: "public-odrl@w3.org" <public-odrl@w3.org>
> On 14 Apr 2015, at 12:02 am, Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > > Okay - humour me — I know I’ve danced around this a few times… but… who *is* defining it? Looking at the BBC’s terms: http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/ They make a clear distinction between “personal” and “business” use (purposes). You can then delve into the details of each license..but the point is that there are common concepts about what “personal” and “business” use mean - and there is no way that if we defined “personal” that it would match the intricacies of the BBC Personal Use license. Just like ccRELs definition of: "cc:CommercialUse - using the Work for commercial purposes” would not come close to the BBC Business Use license. But the point of these languages was never to replace the verbatim wording of such licenses/policies. So imagine we had “personal”, “business” and “educational” purpose usages - how are they defined precisely? Does it really matter? If we defined “personal” as “for personal use” wouldn’t that be enough? Microsoft sells “Office for Home”, “Office for Business”, and “Office for Students” - and there is no need to read the T&Cs to determine which one you should buy. Cheers... Renato Iannella Semantic Identity http://semanticidentity.com Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 13:44:20 UTC