Closed mattl closed 3 years ago
The same argument could be made for <picture>
, <audio>
, and <video>
, and yet for those cases the web platform has managed without this. Is there a reason why the rel=license microformat isn't enough?
+1 to what @hober said.
Search engines like Bing, Yahoo!, or Google have general support for providing licensing information for images or video, as outlined in Google's guidelines. As a type, there's even 3DModel
.
You could provide machine-readable license information about your model as outlined in the example below (using JSON-LD, out of other options, see the guidelines for more):
<script type="application/ld+json">
{
"@context": "https://schema.org/",
"@type": "3DModel",
"contentUrl": "https://example.com/assets/example.glb",
"license": "https://example.com/license",
"acquireLicensePage": "https://example.com/how-to-use-my-3dmodels"
}
</script>
<model style="width: 400px; height: 300px">
<source src="https://example.com/assets/example.glb" type="model/gltf-binary">
</model>
3D models may very well support reuse and embedding via a well known license (Creative Commons Attribution, GPLv2, 2 clause BSD, etc) — provide a license attribute that takes a URI pointing to the relevant SPDX license page.