- From: Víctor Rodríguez-Doncel via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 06:46:15 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
I am strongly in favour of it. I think we need a something to meed "everything", for the two examples that I provide next:
**First example: All rights reserved.**
```
<http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved>
a odrl:Policy ;
rdfs:label "All rights reserved"@en;
dct:publisher " None" ;
rdfs:comment "This license does not disclose any of the IPR and database rights"@en ;
cc:legalcode <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved> ;
odrl:prohibition [
odrl:action ldr:IPRRight, ldr:databaseRight;
] .
```
I was more precise and I distinguished between copyright and database right, also limiting the prohibition in a very specific manner. odrl:use is not precise because the asset can still be read if it is in the internet for example: we only forbid copyright-protected actions like "distribute" o "copy".
For completitude, this is the opposite example:
**Second example: something is in the public domain**
Please note again that by using ldr:IPRRight, ldr:databaseRight the actions permitted are very clear. I still cannot use the resource to commit defamation.
Thus...
.... I am in favour in declaring odrl:use
.... I would even declare two actions for odrl:IPRight and odrl:databaseRight (but without declaring further hierarchies, as this is jurisdiction dependant). I would define databaseRight using CreativeCommons's formula: "database rights, wherever they exist".
```
<http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/publicdomain>
a odrl:Policy ;
rdfs:label "Public domain";
dct:publisher " None" ;
cc:legalcode <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain> ;
rdfs:comment "This statement can be applied to material truly in the public domain (because rights have expired, forfeited or are innaplicable)." ;
odrl:permission [
odrl:action ldr:IPRRight, ldr:databaseRight;
] .
```
--
GitHub Notification of comment by vroddon
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/140#issuecomment-297921173 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 28 April 2017 06:46:22 UTC