Creative Commons licensing

[Alex-Jordan]

This is a feature request.

There could be some element/attribute combination that automatically creates the CC license information and icons. Something like <creative-commons BY="yes" SA="yes" version="4.0"/>.

See https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Marking_your_work_with_a_CC_license which has the HTML code for putting CC license icons on pages.

[rbeezer]

I like this one a lot! I've got some additional ideas, like say ubiquitous="yes|no" if you just want it "up front" or you want it plastered on every single page (physical or virtual).

I'm going to save this one for when I need a smaller project. While I have big chunks of time now, I'm after bigger projects.

[rbeezer]

https://creativecommons.org/2016/10/31/cc-logo-icons-unicode/

[kcrisman]

👍

[sepvar]

When I look here https://creativecommons.org/choose/ I can choose my characteristics and it provides some html-code that has attributes (not displayed on the screen) that, when I include them, get stripped out by the PTX processing. I would like to suggest we allow them to not be stripped rather than creating new attributes. (Although, since they may not be obvious, perhaps we create attributes that become these?)

So, this is the generic html they suggest:

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">
<img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/4.0/88x31.png" />
</a>
<br />
<span xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" property="dct:title">My Title</span> by 
<a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" href="link for attribution" property="cc:attributionName" rel="cc:attributionURL">Person Being Attributed</a> 
is licensed under a 
<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License</a>.
<br />
Based on a work at 
<a xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" href="link to source" rel="dct:source">link to source</a>.
<br />
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at 
<a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" href="link for asking for more permission" rel="cc:morePermissions">link for asking for more permission</a>.

and this is how I would(naively) XML it:

<p>
<url rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">
<image alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" source="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/4.0/88x31.png" />
</url>
</p>
<p>
<span xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" property="dct:title">My Title</span> by 
<url xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" href="link for attribution" property="cc:attributionName" rel="cc:attributionURL">Person Being Attributed</url> 
is licensed under a 
<url rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License</url>.
</p>
<p>Based on a work at <url xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" href="link to source" rel="dct:source">link to source</url>.
</p>
<p>Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at 
<url xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" href="link for asking for more permission" rel="cc:morePermissions">link for asking for more permission</url>.

I changed "br" (break) to "p" "a" (anchor) to "url" "a:src" (source inside an anchor) to "url:source"

This suggests that "url" should allow attributes "rel" and "xmlns:dct" and "xmlns:cc" and "property" and that "image" should allow "alt" and perhaps continue to ignore "style" and that we allow "span"?

Also, when I tried it, the "image:source" did not work with a remote address I had to bring the image local and reference the local version. I also found that they provided a PNG image and the LaTeX complained about PNG, so I had to convert it.

[rbeezer]

Dear Joe,

The shortlicense element is meant to be a very short text string briefly indicating the license. So a p would encourage more text than appropriate.

A proposal like the above needs to consider how it would be rendered in other formats, such as LaTeX. I have no idea how all those attributes translate to anything sensible in LaTeX.

CC logos have been discussed extensively in the old Google Group. The legal terms surrounding their logos make them difficult to use directly in a project like ours.

Rob

[sepvar]

Hi, Rob. I was thinking that the attributes would present for webcrawlers in the html and therefore either irrelevant for (i.e. stripped from) the LaTeX or hidden in the PDF indentifiers. Either way, I don't think they are visible.

I'll go try to find the earlier discussion about the images and legal terms. Sorry for not doing that due diligence prior to posting.

I get your point about the "p". I still think the info above is not "more text than appropriate" (thought maybe you disagree?) and was suggesting the "p" as a mechanism for formatting. I'll continue to consider it.

Joe

[rbeezer]

No problem on the really old stuff. I barely recall what was there.

More likely we'd have an element or attribute like

<license creativecommons="BY SA" />

and converters would do all the work from there. Authors should provide the bare minimum - here, their choice with CC's abbreviations.