flac dev - Jul 2007 - Proposal for Discussion: LICENSE and COPYRIGHT tags on Vorbis Comments

Hello all,

It has come to my attention in a rather unfortunate chat that some
artists do not use Vorbis (or FLAC) because they offer no standard way
to put a license into it.  In an age of Creative Commons and
Copyright-awareness this is a valid concern, although I'm not sure how
those artists work with MP3's ID3 in a standard way, considering all
the hacks floating around.

Anyway, Ogg Metadata is so far vaporware, and I rather focus on the
here and now.  As such, I looked into Vorbis Comments and decided to
create the standard tags that should be used for this purpose.  Those
will in theory work on all software, be it encoder or decoder, and
will please the artists.  This proposal posted on the XiphWiki is now
open for discussion and may, or not, be endorsed by Xiph soon.

~*~

Straight from
//wiki.xiph.org/index.php/LICENSE_and_COPYRIGHT_tags_on_Vorbis_Comments

Currently, these may be used on Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, and Theora as
these formats are compatible with the Vorbis Comments schema.

Vorbis Comments is a simple tagging format, and not a metadata system,
and is stored inside files. It may be compared with ID3, but in
opposition to it, Vorbis Comments are a clear and coherent standard,
and not a pile of hacks. Vorbis Comments are written in UPPER CASE.

This proposal states two new tags, LICENSE and COPYRIGHT.

The LICENSE tag must store an URI pointing to the relevant license
documentation.

 Example:
 LICENSE=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

The COPYRIGHT tag must store the name of the authoring person or
entity. A date should not be stored here, as a DATE tag already
exists.

 Example:
 COPYRIGHT=Xiph.Org Foundation

~*~

I would like to hear from those who agree and disagree with this proposal.

-Ivo

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 01:13:40AM +0100, Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves wrote:
> This proposal states two new tags, LICENSE and COPYRIGHT.
These are not new tags. They have been part of the recommended 
interoperability set for years, and are the standard way of
flagging such information in ogg files. Hopefully you can find your
chat partner and let them know!
> The LICENSE tag must store an URI pointing to the relevant license
> documentation.
The current recommendation is more general. Maybe we should amend it to 
suggest including a URL for machinability.
> The COPYRIGHT tag must store the name of the authoring person or
> entity. A date should not be stored here, as a DATE tag already
> exists.
> 
> Example:
> COPYRIGHT=Xiph.Org Foundation
A full statement is also acceptable:
COPYRIGHT=Copyright (C) 2007 Your Records, Ltd.  All rights reserved.
> I would like to hear from those who agree and disagree with this proposal.
I think it's a good idea. Tool support could be better though. :)

 -r

On 7/8/07, Ralph Giles <giles@xiph.org> wrote:
> These are not new tags. They have been part of the recommended
> interoperability set for years, and are the standard way of
> flagging such information in ogg files.
Oh, really?  Well, be kind enough to provide me a link. I'll be
deleting the wiki page and try to add the information somewhere else
more relevant.
> Maybe we should amend it to
> suggest including a URL for machinability.
That would be more logical, I reckon.
> I think it's a good idea. Tool support could be better though. :)
Well, look at it this way: if I wasn't aware of it, how would outside
developers be?  This information needs to be spread far and wide.  I
think I'll start with a post on the Creative Commons list.

An off topic question: will you be attending July's online meeting?

-Ivo