liblicense [creative commons work]

[Rafael Fernández López]

Hi Kevin and all,

>
> I'm not fully sure it should have a special status in the file manager, it
> probably be better to put it with the other metadata in the info panel. For
> more document or media oriented applications though that'd be terrific.
>

I agree, as Thomas pointed out, for example for KOffice. But on
Dolphin, we could have a really nice kcm tab that goes like:

- Analyze the mimetype of the file(s) selected.
- Determine which licenses can be selected depending on that mimetype.
- Add the to the dialog, letting the user select the license according
to that kind of mimetype.

As well, with the file manager you will be able to set the license to
more than one file at a time. Of course specific applications can
benefit from this too.

>
> I'm pondering about this, at first it looked like a tempting idea, I
> thought "ok, one more C lib to wrap... no big deal". But the more I look at
> how it's done the more I wonder if it's in our best interest.
>
> My current thinking on this is that we shouldn't use this lib, but share the
> RDF schema and data. Because what liblicense basically do (AFAIU) is 1)
> read/write tags from file to set their license, and 2) give information on a
> particular license based on the RDF information provided.
>

Hmm, probably you're right... but the easier thing right now to avoid
more work is to add liblicense on kdesupport if it is not packaged on
distributions when 4.1 arrives. If distributions package it, then
we're done, we just depend on it. We only have to add the part related
to KDE (kcm's...).

> For 1) we already have the infrastructure in place thanks to Strigi analyzers
> and KFileWritePlugin. So we'd basically duplicate a specialized subset of our
> stack only for license while our framework is already able to do it.
>
> About 2) we already have Nepomuk to access RDF information in a nice way.
> Since they already have all the RDF schemas and RDF files needed for this, I
> think it shouldn't be hard to feed Nepomuk this kind of information.
>
> Both combined, that'd mean we'd have the whole data indexed for free, while
> using liblicense would require extra work (by at least patching our strigi
> analyzers).

Yeah, but that's more work for us. I thought of that and for that
reason I want to move all this for 4.1. We also can see in the
meantime if distributions want to package liblicense or not.

>
> Well, it's their call really. Maybe the best course of action here, is to
> amend the xdg icon spec? This way you could have those icons depending on the
> icon theme like all our other icons.
>

Is just a question of asking :)


Bye and thanks,
Rafael Fernández López.