Metadata Views: Full License View

[joshuahannan]

Issue To Be Solved

Flow is working with governments to define a standard for how NFT projects can define licensing rights for NFTs that define permissions for what can be done with them and their metadata by the owner.
The current License view does not sufficiently cover the needs for a full license view, so we would like to define a new one that projects can start using.

Suggest A Solution

• Decide if we want to define a new view, or modify the old one. (probably need to define a new one)
• Decide which fields are needed
  Options:
  • plain text description
  • ipfs hash
  • file
  • multiple licenses?

We'll post and discuss more in this issue

[bluesign]

is this Dapper Labs as Flow Team, or Dapper Labs as Dapper Wallet ? ( called Dapper Studio I guess if not different entity) or is it Dapper Labs as Dapper Foundation ?

In general I don't have problem with this issue, but I feel like that this can be used as a stepping stone of license enforcement on Flow Blockchain ( by Flow Protocol or Service Account ), so I think it would be nice to make that clear from the beginning.

[joshuahannan]

@psiemens @EricLin2004 Would you be able to elaborate a bit more on what is required for this? I want to make sure this is pretty clear

[joshuahannan]

Here are two documents that our legal team has put together for how we envision this. I'll try to respond again later this week with some ideas for how I might want to implement this but any ideas or feedback in the meantime is appreciated. :)

[joshuahannan]

[joshuahannan]

[bluesign]

This is very good idea, as long as Flow Team ( blockchain ) does not enforce this, just for user information and user trust, I think it will be beneficial to ecosystem.

But from the look of the chart seems grouping is not so well.

• Why Voting Rights and Content and Experiences mutually exclusive?

If we exclude the full ownership for a second:

• There are 5 Groups ( 3 Colors ) with first 6 license items out of 10 are same.

We can summarize with 2 questions:

• Do you want commercial license? ( no / limited / unlimited )
• Do you want additional utility? ( Voting / Content / Skip )

I think very poorly designed tbh. Maybe even multiple badges can cover better. ( e.g. base & commercial & voting )

Even technically those rights can be interfaces, and can be combined later. Or you can maybe upgrade your NFT later for another license.

• "subject to potential approval of content creator" I think here can be a little push on the content provider side.

[joshuahannan]

We can summarize with 2 questions:
Do you want commercial license? ( no / limited / unlimited )
Do you want additional utility? ( Voting / Content / Skip )
I think very poorly designed tbh. Maybe even multiple badges can cover better. ( e.g. base & commercial & voting )

Are you saying that instead of indicating which group an NFT belongs to in this view, we just provide answers to these two questions with an enum or something? It isn't clear what you are suggesting.

"subject to potential approval of content creator" I think here can be a little push on the content provider side.

Can you elaborate here? I'm not sure what you mean

[bluesign]

Are you saying that instead of indicating which group an NFT belongs to in this view, we just provide answers to these two questions with an enum or something?

I meant If we want to make a generic license view, we should have an array of granted permissions on chain, rest should be up to dapp to show. e.g coloring/badging

Something like this:

License( name='Base NFT License' , rights=
[
   LicenseGrant(Code: License.PERSONAL, Text: 'Use content for personal use', Link: HttpLink('https://license.dapperlabs.com/personal')),
   LicenseGrant(Code: License.RESELL, Text: 'Resell short description', Link: HttpLink('https://license.dapperlabs.com/personal')),
])

Can you elaborate here? I'm not sure what you mean

Content providers will rarely grant this, so it is better to make this separate right. I mean License View should describe in full, it should not leave part like: " depends on provider "

[psiemens]

This is very good idea, as long as Flow Team ( blockchain ) does not enforce this, just for user information and user trust, I think it will be beneficial to ecosystem.

Definitely not something we'd enforce, just an optional tool for NFT developers.

I meant If we want to make a generic license view, we should have an array of granted permissions on chain, rest should be up to dapp to show. e.g coloring/badging

I was imagining something simpler: just a name, optional text and link rather than having all the different components of the license on the chain. A user would have to download the linked license (or read the text) to understand all the parts. Reason being that I'm not sure every license (now and in the future) can be so nicely (and legally) split into pieces.

But I'm not a lawyer! I'll get an opinion from the lawyers who drafted the framework above.

[turbolent]

Maybe the existing license metadata should be renamed to indicate it is a software license?

I really like the idea of machine-readable license information. It would be great to have a Rights Expression Language for Cadence.

The Creative Commons organization has done a lot in this space over the years, maybe we can adopt their ccREL?

W3C's ODRL looks even more expressive.