W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2011

RE: Issue-57

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:02:02 -0400
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1309186922.6147.14055.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Hi Larry,

On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 00:05 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
> >     <http://example/z> xhv:license <http://example/l1>.
> >  Suppose that I do a GET of 'http://example/z' and retrieve a 
> > "representation" R.
> >  My interlocutor wants me to be able to infer that
> >   R xhv:license <http://example/l1>.
> I'm wondering about this inference, and its possible relationship to
> the copyright/deep linking issue we've been talking about recently.
> Seems to me that whether you can make that inference depends on the
> license l1, and that there are some licenses for which the inference
> is not true, because the license applies to the material _at_ the URI.
> For example,
> "You are licensed to transclude or view or print the content from
> <http://example/z> but not republish it at a different URL than the
> one you found it at?"
>  Such that the license really applies to http://example/z but not to R
> itself? 

That's an interesting example, but I think it still works in the way
that Jonathan has described it.  Notice that the license itself contains
a conditional: *if* the image is obtained from http://example/z *then*
the user has permission to view or print it.  If the image is instead
obtained from a different URI, that same license condition holds, but
the antecedent of the rule is no longer satisfied ("*if* the image is
obtained from http://example/z") and hence the user is *not* granted

> Or, to take the "deep linking" case:
> "the license for <http://example/z> only allows access if one first
> accesses <http://example/homepage> and clicks on the link there" ?

Again, AFAICT, as long as the conditional *is* part of the license, then
it should still work fine as Jonathan described.  If the content is
provided somewhere else then the antecedent in the license may not be
satisfied, and the rights to use the content may not be granted.

> There are some licenses we think are reasonable, and some licenses we
> think are _not_ reasonable, but ... how would you write a license that
> disallowed deep linking? 
> Of course, you could write a license that allowed reuse of R, but
> perhaps that might be explicit:
> "whatever content is located at the URI given,  that content may be
> used in the following ways".

Actually, that one seems ambiguous, as it isn't clear whether the
content must *still* be located at the URI given in order to use it "in
the following ways".


> and that license l2 would read the same, but instead start
>    "the content given may be used in the following ways".
> and you could infer
>      R xhv:license <http://example/l2>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Monday, 27 June 2011 15:02:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:39 UTC