Re: [office-metadata] Fwd: [ext-CC] Re: CC extension

[Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

On Oct 25, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:

> For my part, I would always include a license as what you call a  
> "local copy."

Yeah, I have no problem with this at all. I used a poor choice of  
words ("available on the web") because that is indeed not really the  
issue. What's significant is the globally unique string. That CC has  
a really nice infrastructure of web accesslble stuff around their  
URIs (including HTML pages with licenses that real human beings -- as  
opposed to lawyers ;-) -- can actually understand)  is just gravy.

So let me step back and say quite clearly: that phrase is  
inconsistent with what I've been arguing, and should be stricken from  
the public record!

I agree, then, the licenses probably ought to be locally stored too  
by default. But ulitmately this is an implementation detail. As I  
said in a followup to this, there's aboslutely no problem with them  
including the local (HTML, or text) copy, or a human readable label  
for the URI in the file wrapper, or whatever else to signal to their  
users in human understandbale ways what that URI means ("you can do  
X, Y, Z with this document"). That doesn't mean this is some kind of  
unique problem that cannot be handled really, really, well by my  
proposed solution.

Bruce