Change Use_Rights URL to contain a finite list?

[RonDrabkin]

Use_Rights URL is defined here https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/LRMI/Properties/useRightsURL
Although, we notice Creative Commons is usually populated in License, not in Use_Rights URL.

It would be good to have at least some kind of finite list contained, containing cc by and others, such as those here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

Also, perhaps we can clarify which of the two fields to use.

It would then be easier to classify a resource as Open or not.

[science]

I think LRMI is deprecating useRightsURL in favor of license. They are being called "sameAs" I think.. I'm not sure we can limit the list of licenses to only open ones like CC. It's valid (I think) to publish closed licenses resources into LR.. Thoughts?

[science]

@RonDrabkin I feel like you should show this ticket on the Twitter feed as proof about whether you care about open licensing or not!

[joehobson]

It wouldn't be difficult to change the code to require one from a specific set of licenses, so the functionality isn't a problem. Whether or not we implement on the GoOpen node is a policy decision for OET, and possibly the community at large (if they want to make a request to OET). I've talked with James Collins and the current decision is to wait and see how the community uses the license field and proceed with further restrictions at a later date if necessary.

Also, perhaps we can clarify which of the two fields to use.

The GoOpen schema validation requires the license field, which we based on schema.org not accepting the addition of the useRightsUrl field and other LRMI users moving towards license.

[RonDrabkin]

Makes sense about it being a policy decision.

I'm far from the expert here, but my understanding of best practice is to have a default value, maybe with a finite list. For example, when someone publishes a video on YouTube, they can choose from the default (the standard YouTube license) or can choose to select an open license. On OpenEd.com, we default to having assessments created on our platform being all open sourced.

As just one community member, my concern is the blank license fields that exist today and if there is some way to figure out what they are.

[science]

Summary of issue: Should new submissions to LR 2.0 require license field to be filled out? Second: Should license field be a limited list of values?