Hi folks
I am hitting the same issue in a different context.
Basically in AU it will be possilbe to be on the spot fined $1300 for
copyright infringement which you were unaware of.
I am trying to work on a model for branding information and tech
products so that the public have some hope of being lawful.
I dont know if the following idea will be useful for gnewsense
but thought that the structure might be interesting.
There needs to be a branding campaign so that people can identify different
kinds of license/access rights.
Ive got a basic idea but need to work on it. I've posted it to a few
people to see if its useful and am happy for feedback on the idea or
the structure.
Im thinking of this as a consumer rights branding campaign so that
people can tell what kind of information or technology they are
looking at to buy or use, it could also be a structure for use by a
large organisation which wants to track what it can customise and what
it can share with regard to information and technology. eg. Government
checking that licences around technologies do not conflict with public
information responsibilities.
Perhaps it would be useful for projects too for the project at this
point the dublin core idea of structured info for licensing might be
useful. The labelling is probably more up the consumer end.
I'm suggesting dublin core metadata which matches the label breakdown
so that people can search for information based on its access and use
rights.
There would need to be the specific license and copyright owner, (these
exist)
the access profile, and the cost profile, or something similar?
This spectrum would have to include the more closed kinds as well as
the more open kinds. I'm trying to map to a simple division which
allows different licenses to be included there are many flavours of
license and I dont know if they can effectively be represented this
way or whether this is just another way of drawing the commons stuff.
I am not trying to duplicate the commons flavours but am looking for a
way to map the functional characteristics of the available licenses so
that people can choose to buy or avoid information or technologies, by
seeing what it does before they buy/use it. Perhaps in the end this
may be what the nextgen CC set will do.
black - conditional access/use
- black
closed source DRM with TPM, limited time for use, pay per view,
restricted to specific technologies or with a sunset clause
subscription.
red - able to access
- closed source standard copyright
orange - able to investigate
- source is viewable, not customisable
- some vendor open source licenses
yellow - able to edit
- source is viewable, customisable but then cannot distribute
- cc derivatives
green - able to distribute
- source is viewable, not customisable but can distribute
- cc =
blue - access, edit and share
- source is viewable, customisable, distributable
- bsd
- public domain
white - access edit and share for future generations
- share alike
- gpl
for licenses where people want to prescribe a specific cohort of
people for use then the colour circle is half the 'in' colour and half
the colour of 'the rest of us'
eg. a document which was copyright but share alike for edu purposes
would be red and white.
colour has problems for colourblind folk.
there need to be symbols. colours could reinforce the symbols
they need to be a buyers guide as per GM products or warnings on
cigarettes.
Cost model:
free$
free with paid support
one off fee
one off fee with paid support
subscribe fee
subscribe fee including paid support
subscribe fee with sunset clause which generates end of life for the
application
subscribe, sunset support
Because of the way that the AU is applying the DMCA I feel we need
something like this. What do you think? Is this a help for gnewsense or
another
layer of trickiness?
Janet