On 9/11/12 11:03 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>
>
> If 'most people will want it' anyway, you don't need to enforce it
> with a license, do you?
If "most" is enough for you, no. But remember that a license doesn't
make anything happen -- it only says what should happen. Licenses don't
enforce; software standards DO enforce (and this is, of course, the
point of Lessig's book "Code and other laws of cyberspace").
>
> I think there are two different things here, 'good design' and
> licensing. We don't generally try to enforce good design or good UI or
> good functionality with _licensing_. Licensing is to protect the
> rights of the owner, and serve their interests. Not to try to somehow
> enforce that all users practice good design, somehow.
Yes, that is what I was saying. I believe that attribution licensing
will fall away as it becomes easier to know the provenance of data,
which is a de facto attribution. The software standard of provenance
will be more effective than a license, and cheaper to "enforce" since
the standards of the web themselves will require it.
>
> In fact, I think there are use cases involving wild remixing,
> combination, and derivation of data from many different sources --
> where the requirement to always keep track of provenance will incure a
> significant cost, that will sometimes change the cost/benefit
> calculation of using data from a source that requires attribution,
> perhaps to the point that it's no longer feasible.
I suggest you keep an eye on the W3C provenance work. It was recently
explained to me that they see a move from triples to quads, where the
source is no more burdensome than the subject, predicate or object, and
there is no "keeping track." It comes with the data.
There are other areas of linked data that I think will be burdensome
(inferencing, for example) and I've heard some folks talk about having
to work around extended chains of data. There's also the whole "blank
node" controversy, although that seems to have died down. But the W3C
provenance group appears to be quite aware of efficiency in design.
> Design decisions in software are never just about "is this helpful",
> they are always about costs and benefits. Trying to enforce a design
> decision in a license takes what should be a contextually-specific
> design decision and trying to make it a universal licensing
> requirement. This is not about good design.
I'm not clear on your point. I don't believe that OCLC considers its
license a form of "good design." W3C standards are, pretty much by
definition, about design and functionality. So if provenance is built
into the data structure, you can use the provenance data provided or
ignore it, but it will be there "by design."
kc
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tue Sep 11 2012 - 15:28:25 EDT