[okfn-discuss] registration and "relinquishment"

Tue Jul 29 07:42:48 UTC 2008

dear Mike, thanks for your response,

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 09:58:38AM -0700, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> Certifying/determining status of works -- next thing we're working on,
> including a PD assertion/certification that would help others
> independently verify the status of a work, and collaboration with
> projects like OpenLibrary and OKFN.
> 
> Registries could support this work, but registries are hard to define.
>  See presentations and video from
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Creative_Commons_Technology_Summit_2008-06-18

I enjoyed your slides but they are a bit *too* thought-provoking to
cover in a quick email. :)

> > ... thus combining CC terms with a set of different DRM restrictions.
> > So of course work on registration and *certification* of works
> > serves equally well to close as it does to open.
> 
> This is debatable. DRM requires local software that attempts to
> control what a user can do with content. Historically the intersection
> of DRM and digital rights description/expression/rights management
> information has been just about nil. 

Ah, then I should be using the term "DRM" differently or not at all.
In OpenGeoConsortium world they use "DRM" to apply to rights expression
and management that is focused particularly on *services*.
It is unfortunate branding, which is why they renamed their GeoDRM
working group "GeoRM" - http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/geormwg

In this worldview there is a "gatekeeper" service which sits in front
of a data access/publishing service, handling authentication and
negotiating terms of use. Even a public data source would have a 
"null restriction" by default.

OGC folk go so far as to say "DRM is first a metadata-tracking problem....
Second, DRM is an enforcement problem" (the reference model linked at
http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/requests/30 ) Their work in
extending CC to express more restrictions represents the "flipside" to
me - that a toolset made to communicate "open" rights is just as
useful for closing them down. The tools look just the same. 

It reminds me that the work on RDF for the semantic web originates in
part from PICS, the self-censorship expression language, as noted in 
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/specbg.html 

> > I wonder to what extent CC's development of work in this area has been
> > driven by approaches from restrictions-focused projects like this.
> Not at all.

Glad to hear it.

> > "solutions" may be out there that serve the purposes of making it
> > easier to find, reuse and have assurance of quality - *without*
> > having this property of encouraging restriction and over-precision
> > on the flipside?

In one of your slides this is stated -
  #29 Issues of provenance are of particular relevance to copyright
      licensing on the web, but the decentralized web presents trust of
      agents and data as a general problem. A commons registry could
      evolve to address these problems beyond the scope of
      copyright.

I think provenance - including both attribution and processing
history that connects to other data sets - could be more useful in
registry/repository world than copyright licensing. Trust is a huge
word to use where quality assurance and future persistence are mostly
what is needed. Well, "quality" is a huge word, too. I will restrain
myself from rambling vaguely on at this point.

cheers,

jo
--