Difference between revisions of "Talk:Protecting content in an open grid"
Dale Innis (talk | contribs) (New section: Some updates nearly a year later) |
Lillie Yifu (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
-- [[User:Dale Innis|Dale Innis]] 08:53, 18 July 2008 (PDT) | -- [[User:Dale Innis|Dale Innis]] 08:53, 18 July 2008 (PDT) | ||
== Licensing == | |||
What is really needed is a licensing url, which would control how the bits in the permissions field are implemented. This would include things such as the ability to make a set number of copies of a particular object, a control over what permissions an owner can grant. For example "You have full perms, but you can't give away full perms copies, but only no-transfer copies." | |||
This licensing url would then be able to generate caps for specific requests. Each grid would have a default license URL, which would be the grid's own permissions systems. Trust would be determined by two things, one intrinsic trust based on agreements with the other grid, and the other grid being able to access the licensing URL. | |||
[[User:Lillie Yifu|Lillie Yifu]] 09:20, 16 September 2008 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 08:20, 16 September 2008
Thought on DRM
- Zha, I replaced your "legal remedies" by "other remedies". I would like to think that legal remedies are a last resort, when all other methods have been exhausted. I know that that's not "the American way", and that it's normal to sue people just because they frown at you the wrong way in the US, but that's not normal behaviour in the rest of the world. "Other" probably implies or includes "legal" anyway.
thought on new page title
all, how about moving this page to "Protecting content in an open grid"? i feel that that title would capture the topic of the discussion in a better way...
Dr Scofield 04:42, 26 September 2007 (PDT)
- I'd vote for that new title, matches better what has been and will have to be discussed here.
- Boroondas Gupte 05:43, 26 September 2007 (PDT)
- I support any suggestion that deletes references to "IP" where IP != Internet Protocol. ;-)
- And yes, that would be a good choice of title. --Morgaine Dinova 19:19, 26 September 2007 (PDT)
Some updates nearly a year later
I've been thinking and talking to folks about how IP protection might work in VW interop, so I was happy to find this page. I've done some things to update it (fixing the tenses and all), and to spell out a few things more clearly for people who weren't present for the September 2007 discussion. Hope this is not annoying to anyone, and of course feel free to edit my changes since it's a wiki an' all. :)
Are there any pages yet talking about the requirements on OGP for enabling asset transfer, including license digests? I'd like to contribute to (or start, if there isn't one) a Wiki area for gathering those thoughts.
-- Dale Innis 08:53, 18 July 2008 (PDT)
Licensing
What is really needed is a licensing url, which would control how the bits in the permissions field are implemented. This would include things such as the ability to make a set number of copies of a particular object, a control over what permissions an owner can grant. For example "You have full perms, but you can't give away full perms copies, but only no-transfer copies."
This licensing url would then be able to generate caps for specific requests. Each grid would have a default license URL, which would be the grid's own permissions systems. Trust would be determined by two things, one intrinsic trust based on agreements with the other grid, and the other grid being able to access the licensing URL.
Lillie Yifu 09:20, 16 September 2008 (PDT)