Fortunately, almost every family has traditions and stories. Unfortunately, some of those stories and the basis for some of the traditions, may not have been completely or accurately transmitted from generation to generation. Some of those stories and traditions find there way into published family histories and genealogies. My family has several such traditions and stories. One of them even became a general release commercially made motion picture about my Great-great-greatgrandfather, John Tanner. If you would like to see the movie, you can, it is posted online in two parts.
http://youtu.be/NHXcOVCrzvA
http://youtu.be/HKNCM69lcbk
The movie is very moving and is a wonderful example to the family. But is it historically accurate? I don't want to criticize the movie, I like it too much. But, the point is that popularized and contemporary portrayals of our ancestors might not be exactly accurate. Does that really matter? It does if you are a genealogist and need accurate information to extend your family line.
One of the most common problems I encounter is the origin story. Oh, my ancestors came from Poland or Russia or Germany. The challenge is that the story might be true or not, but often I find that the real place of origin was in part of Germany that was previously Poland or Russia or whatever, depending on the political boundaries of the time. Sometimes people are really surprised to find that their ancestors came from Russia when they had always heard they were from Germany or vice versa.
In the movie, Treasure in Heaven, The John Tanner Story, John is represented by an actor who looks to be in his mid-forties. John Tanner was born in Hopkinton, Washington, Rhode Island on 15 August 1778. The events in the movie take place, beginning in 1830 and continue in Kirtland, Ohio in the 1830s. The Kirtland Temple was dedicated in 1836. OK, so what's the problem. John Tanner was 58 years old, very old for the time, when he lived in Kirtland and by the time he lived in Nauvoo, he was ten years older or in his late 60s. Not faulting the movie, but the point is that traditions are not always transmitted accurately.
Another venerable story from our Morgan ancestors was recently researched by my daughter who found that only portions of the story were accurate. Interestingly, both the John Tanner story and the Morgan story are codified in several books, magazine articles and, like I mentioned, even a commercially made motion picture.
Family stories and traditions are a good place to start your genealogical research, but they are a bad place to stop.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, September 3, 2012
What good is a tablet computer?
The very first thing about tablet computers is the computers part. They are computers. Theoretically, they can do anything a so-called desktop computer can do because they have similar internal components. A better comparison is between my desktop computer, in my case an iMac, and my laptop computer, a MacBook Pro. The main difference between the laptop and the desktop is the size. Both have keyboards, both have monitors, both have a variety of external connectors, both have approximately the same speed of processor, and they both run exactly the same programs. In fact, they both run the same operating system (except I have upgraded my desktop to Mountain Lion and haven't gotten around to it yet with the laptop). If you were to go buy a MacBook Pro today, you would get the following processor:
2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor (Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz) with 6MB shared L3 cache or a 2.6GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor (Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz) with 6MB shared L3 cache
If you decided to buy an iMac today, after decided the amount of memory and screen size, you would likely get the following processor:
2.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 with 6MB on-chip shared L3 cache
So, surprisingly, you would get a faster processor with the MacBook Pro than you would get with the iMac. So the size of the computer has little to do with its speed or capabilities. If I can get a faster computer with a MacBook Pro, why should I even buy a desktop, why not just have the MacBook Pro as my primary computer? That is sort of a difficult question to answer. It is like asking why do I need two cars and why do I need a summer home and other related questions. I usually answer that question by looking at my 27" display on my iMac. But even then, I could hook up a 27" monitor to my MacBook Pro. On the other hand, I actually often use both computers at the same time. OK, so the point of this discussion is that there are personal reasons for choosing a desktop over a laptop or both.
That brings us to tablets. If you are comparing a laptop to a desktop, there are really few differences. You can usually add more stuff to your desktop, but in the case of my MacBook Pro, they have the same connectors, but internally, I could have more storage memory and RAM in my desktop. If that is important.
Tablets are really limited small computers with a completely different type of user interface. With both the desktop and the laptop, I have a key board. With a tablet, I use my fingers to smear commands on the screen of the computer. Clean hands, clean computer. For me, with my clumsy finger, entering information into a tablet is slow and painful. Hmm, but you say, why don't you buy a keyboard for your tablet computer? Hmm, I say back, why don't I just use my laptop? In other words, adding a keyboard to your tablet computer essentially turns it into a laptop. A really shrinky laptop with a messy screen.
I control my laptop and my desktop with a mouse (not touching the screen) and a touchpad. Using the touchpad is like operating the tablet computer, without touching the screen. I use the same gestures and things move on screen in the same way. But wait, there is another major difference. The tablet computer doesn't have the same operating system as my other two computers. It has a shrinky operating system that uses dinky little programs to do stuff. For example, I use my computer to edit huge photographic image files. There is no practical way to do that at all on a tablet.
So, the tablet computer is not like another type of latptop, it is different machine with its own advantages and limitations. Now another issue. I can do almost everything (and more) on my iPhone that I can do on a tablet computer. So my iPhone, it turns out, is really a very shrinky little tablet computer (with a telephone). What does the tablet have? A larger screen.
What about connectors? Neither my iPhone nor my iPad have a lot of connectors. There are some adapters and it is possible to hook up keyboards and external monitors, but the point is? Do I use my tablet computer? Yes, I figure I use, on the average, about 25 different programs on the tablet computer every day.
Are there things I do with my tablet computer that I don't do on my laptop or my desktop? Yes, certainly, like carry it around all the time and use it for finding directions and etc. and etc. I also read books on both my iPhone and my iPad, something I don't do on either my desktop or laptop.
Do I do my genealogy on a tablet? The real questions is could I do my genealogy on a tablet? The answer is a very qualified yes. There are some things I can do, if I add a keyboard, but then aren't I really using it like a laptop? Isn't there really an unbroken spectrum of computers from tablets to laptops to desktops? And can't you choose to operate at any point on the spectrum? And can't you operate at more than one point on the spectrum?
2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor (Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz) with 6MB shared L3 cache or a 2.6GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor (Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz) with 6MB shared L3 cache
If you decided to buy an iMac today, after decided the amount of memory and screen size, you would likely get the following processor:
2.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 with 6MB on-chip shared L3 cache
So, surprisingly, you would get a faster processor with the MacBook Pro than you would get with the iMac. So the size of the computer has little to do with its speed or capabilities. If I can get a faster computer with a MacBook Pro, why should I even buy a desktop, why not just have the MacBook Pro as my primary computer? That is sort of a difficult question to answer. It is like asking why do I need two cars and why do I need a summer home and other related questions. I usually answer that question by looking at my 27" display on my iMac. But even then, I could hook up a 27" monitor to my MacBook Pro. On the other hand, I actually often use both computers at the same time. OK, so the point of this discussion is that there are personal reasons for choosing a desktop over a laptop or both.
That brings us to tablets. If you are comparing a laptop to a desktop, there are really few differences. You can usually add more stuff to your desktop, but in the case of my MacBook Pro, they have the same connectors, but internally, I could have more storage memory and RAM in my desktop. If that is important.
Tablets are really limited small computers with a completely different type of user interface. With both the desktop and the laptop, I have a key board. With a tablet, I use my fingers to smear commands on the screen of the computer. Clean hands, clean computer. For me, with my clumsy finger, entering information into a tablet is slow and painful. Hmm, but you say, why don't you buy a keyboard for your tablet computer? Hmm, I say back, why don't I just use my laptop? In other words, adding a keyboard to your tablet computer essentially turns it into a laptop. A really shrinky laptop with a messy screen.
I control my laptop and my desktop with a mouse (not touching the screen) and a touchpad. Using the touchpad is like operating the tablet computer, without touching the screen. I use the same gestures and things move on screen in the same way. But wait, there is another major difference. The tablet computer doesn't have the same operating system as my other two computers. It has a shrinky operating system that uses dinky little programs to do stuff. For example, I use my computer to edit huge photographic image files. There is no practical way to do that at all on a tablet.
So, the tablet computer is not like another type of latptop, it is different machine with its own advantages and limitations. Now another issue. I can do almost everything (and more) on my iPhone that I can do on a tablet computer. So my iPhone, it turns out, is really a very shrinky little tablet computer (with a telephone). What does the tablet have? A larger screen.
What about connectors? Neither my iPhone nor my iPad have a lot of connectors. There are some adapters and it is possible to hook up keyboards and external monitors, but the point is? Do I use my tablet computer? Yes, I figure I use, on the average, about 25 different programs on the tablet computer every day.
Are there things I do with my tablet computer that I don't do on my laptop or my desktop? Yes, certainly, like carry it around all the time and use it for finding directions and etc. and etc. I also read books on both my iPhone and my iPad, something I don't do on either my desktop or laptop.
Do I do my genealogy on a tablet? The real questions is could I do my genealogy on a tablet? The answer is a very qualified yes. There are some things I can do, if I add a keyboard, but then aren't I really using it like a laptop? Isn't there really an unbroken spectrum of computers from tablets to laptops to desktops? And can't you choose to operate at any point on the spectrum? And can't you operate at more than one point on the spectrum?
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Yet some more mystery photos
What if I find my genealogy in a book
There are thousands and thousands of compiled family histories. Many of these are surname books, tracing the descendents of a remote ancestor of the author or authors or tracing the pedigree of the author. Sometimes these books have both, an ancestral pedigree of the remote ancestor and a list of all of the descendents. Some of the most popular and prominent of these in the United States, trace the descendents of the Mayflower passengers who arrived in North America in 1620 in what is now Massachusetts. It is estimated that there may be as many as 35 million people worldwide who can claim ancestry to the Mayflower passengers. See Mayflower Descendants, FamilyTree Magazine.
It doesn't really matter if this is true or not, I have met a number of people who were desperately trying to "prove" their relationship to the Mayflower or some Revolutionary soldier or even, an Indian. The reasons for such efforts vary. For example, here in Arizona many people want to prove relationship to an Indian to claim tribal benefits.
Back to the question at hand. What about compiled (i.e. printed in a book) genealogies? Unless your ancestor wrote his or her own history or autobiography, these sources are almost all derivative in nature. I could spend a day or more talking about evidence and whether or not to rely on derivative evidence, but that is another topic. What is important when looking at any derivative source is to evaluate the original source provided by the author and determine the reliability of the material.
There is a vast difference between say, the Five Generations Project books, also called the Silver books from the General Society of Mayflower Descendants and "John Doe and his family" by Richard Roe with no citations to any sources and obvious errors in places and dates. What I fear is that many researchers don't know the difference.
I have several surname and family history books about my own family and I have just learned of another one I had not heard of before. I don't want to pick on any one of them in particular, but I will give some examples from a book about Sidney Tanner, my Great-great-grandfather. Here is the reference to the book:
De Brouwer, Elizabeth. Sidney Tanner, His Ancestors and Descendants: Pioneer Freighter of the West, 1809-1895. Salt Lake City, Utah (4545 S. 2760 E., Salt Lake City 84117): S. Tanner Family Organization, 1982.
This is one of those books where I can find my own name listed. In this case on page 476. OK, so many people, who do not know such books exist, are thrilled to see their name in print. In my case, the book is useful to look up people to see if we are related and how we are related, but for genealogy, it is almost useless. The book has only a very few sketchy sources listed and those that are listed are copied verbatim from an earlier book. I fully realize the massive amount of effort necessary to track down thousands of descendents of a particular ancestor, but as far as my own genealogy is concerned, the book is almost useless.
As an interesting side note, despite the existence of this and other books about the Tanners, there is a massive amount of wrong information in New.FamilySearch.org and in FamilySearch's Family Tree. It appears that many people can't even copy the book accurately.
So, here are some questions to ask about any surname or compiled genealogy book.
It doesn't really matter if this is true or not, I have met a number of people who were desperately trying to "prove" their relationship to the Mayflower or some Revolutionary soldier or even, an Indian. The reasons for such efforts vary. For example, here in Arizona many people want to prove relationship to an Indian to claim tribal benefits.
Back to the question at hand. What about compiled (i.e. printed in a book) genealogies? Unless your ancestor wrote his or her own history or autobiography, these sources are almost all derivative in nature. I could spend a day or more talking about evidence and whether or not to rely on derivative evidence, but that is another topic. What is important when looking at any derivative source is to evaluate the original source provided by the author and determine the reliability of the material.
There is a vast difference between say, the Five Generations Project books, also called the Silver books from the General Society of Mayflower Descendants and "John Doe and his family" by Richard Roe with no citations to any sources and obvious errors in places and dates. What I fear is that many researchers don't know the difference.
I have several surname and family history books about my own family and I have just learned of another one I had not heard of before. I don't want to pick on any one of them in particular, but I will give some examples from a book about Sidney Tanner, my Great-great-grandfather. Here is the reference to the book:
De Brouwer, Elizabeth. Sidney Tanner, His Ancestors and Descendants: Pioneer Freighter of the West, 1809-1895. Salt Lake City, Utah (4545 S. 2760 E., Salt Lake City 84117): S. Tanner Family Organization, 1982.
This is one of those books where I can find my own name listed. In this case on page 476. OK, so many people, who do not know such books exist, are thrilled to see their name in print. In my case, the book is useful to look up people to see if we are related and how we are related, but for genealogy, it is almost useless. The book has only a very few sketchy sources listed and those that are listed are copied verbatim from an earlier book. I fully realize the massive amount of effort necessary to track down thousands of descendents of a particular ancestor, but as far as my own genealogy is concerned, the book is almost useless.
As an interesting side note, despite the existence of this and other books about the Tanners, there is a massive amount of wrong information in New.FamilySearch.org and in FamilySearch's Family Tree. It appears that many people can't even copy the book accurately.
So, here are some questions to ask about any surname or compiled genealogy book.
- Are there sources listed for the facts alleged? If not, the book is a suggestion, not fact.
- Is the information logical and believable? Does the book start out showing you a Coat of Arms from England before citing any possible relationships to the owners of those Arms?
- Does the book start with speculation about the origin of the family name? Before you get to speculations about family names, you need a solidly proved genealogy back to the remote ancestor.
- Does the book omit certain family members because they aren't "acceptable." One of my surname books omits information about my ancestor's third wife because the authors didn't acknowledge her.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Revisiting Medieval Genealogy
I was thinking of coming up with some sort-of icon to warn readers when I start to go into a tirade. It might make things easier all around. But the specter of pedigrees dating back past the Dark Ages into the dawn of history has reared its ugly head again. One of my acquaintances (if he was a friend, he would probably know not to bring the subject up) started to tell me how far back he had taken his genealogy; clear back to 900 AD. It was neither the time or place to have an extended discussion and my wife, who witnessed the conversation, said I did an admirable job of controlling myself.
But each time this happens, I am forced to go back through the process of analyzing whether or not I want to get into the Middle Ages thing or not. If I were to believe the lines on New.FamilySearch.org for my family, my own lines go back into the dim, dark ages. Oh well, its time to go through the whole thing again.
Let's get some definitions going here. The most common definition of the Middle Ages is that time period from around 400 A.D. to around the artificial cut off date of 1500 A.D. My rule of thumb, is that record accuracy begins to decrease and the difficulty of researching the same increases about 1550 A.D. For example, written English is considered to be Middle English (i.e. Chaucer) until around 1500 A.D. Gutenberg printed his first Bibles in the 1450s. If you are going to do genealogical research any time before 1550 A.D. then you will need to learn Latin and how to read Middle English handwriting. See the Script Tutorials, Resources for Old Handwriting and Documents. You may also want to look at paleo.anglo-norman.org. Why do I mention this? Because almost none of the people who I talk to who claim to have their "genealogy" back beyond the 1500s have ever tried to read any of the documents or do any original research. They have simply copied out someone's genealogy from a book and called it their own. In fact, very, very few of the people with these extended pedigrees have even looked at the books. They have just copied some one's pedigree chart on which they found a name in common with someone in their own.
I am going to be blunt. This is intellectual dishonesty.
It may be harmless intellectual dishonesty, but it is dishonest. It is dishonest to claim you are descended from such and such a king living in 900 A.D. when you have no idea who that person was or how you could possibly be related, based solely on finding a convenient pedigree that ties into one of your supposed ancestors.
Now, all the real Medieval scholars out there, don't come back and tell me how your lines are validly proved and that some people really are related to the Kings of Europe and elsewhere. Yep, that is true. Kings had children just like the rest of humanity, and if you want to claim kinship, be my guest. But when do you stop" With Charlemange? With Adam?
I admire anyone who spends the time to learn to read handwriting from any period of time before 1700 A.D. I further admire anyone who learns enough history and early language to translate the old records into modern English. I just don't happen to know very many people who can do either. But don't boast to me that your mother's genealogy goes back to Adam!
If you have spent some time compiling such a genealogical line back to Adam, thanks for your effort. But please read some of the articles and publications of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. I will quote from the description of one study:
But each time this happens, I am forced to go back through the process of analyzing whether or not I want to get into the Middle Ages thing or not. If I were to believe the lines on New.FamilySearch.org for my family, my own lines go back into the dim, dark ages. Oh well, its time to go through the whole thing again.
Let's get some definitions going here. The most common definition of the Middle Ages is that time period from around 400 A.D. to around the artificial cut off date of 1500 A.D. My rule of thumb, is that record accuracy begins to decrease and the difficulty of researching the same increases about 1550 A.D. For example, written English is considered to be Middle English (i.e. Chaucer) until around 1500 A.D. Gutenberg printed his first Bibles in the 1450s. If you are going to do genealogical research any time before 1550 A.D. then you will need to learn Latin and how to read Middle English handwriting. See the Script Tutorials, Resources for Old Handwriting and Documents. You may also want to look at paleo.anglo-norman.org. Why do I mention this? Because almost none of the people who I talk to who claim to have their "genealogy" back beyond the 1500s have ever tried to read any of the documents or do any original research. They have simply copied out someone's genealogy from a book and called it their own. In fact, very, very few of the people with these extended pedigrees have even looked at the books. They have just copied some one's pedigree chart on which they found a name in common with someone in their own.
I am going to be blunt. This is intellectual dishonesty.
It may be harmless intellectual dishonesty, but it is dishonest. It is dishonest to claim you are descended from such and such a king living in 900 A.D. when you have no idea who that person was or how you could possibly be related, based solely on finding a convenient pedigree that ties into one of your supposed ancestors.
Now, all the real Medieval scholars out there, don't come back and tell me how your lines are validly proved and that some people really are related to the Kings of Europe and elsewhere. Yep, that is true. Kings had children just like the rest of humanity, and if you want to claim kinship, be my guest. But when do you stop" With Charlemange? With Adam?
I admire anyone who spends the time to learn to read handwriting from any period of time before 1700 A.D. I further admire anyone who learns enough history and early language to translate the old records into modern English. I just don't happen to know very many people who can do either. But don't boast to me that your mother's genealogy goes back to Adam!
If you have spent some time compiling such a genealogical line back to Adam, thanks for your effort. But please read some of the articles and publications of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. I will quote from the description of one study:
Please focus on the statement, "This has enabled many traditionally accepted relationships to be challenged." Are you aware of the challenges? Do you know what they are talking about? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.Medieval Lands presents narrative biographical genealogies of the major noble families which ruled Europe, North Africa and Western Asia between the 5th and 15th centuries. The approach is to verify all information against primary source material, quoting relevant extracts in the original language. This has enabled many traditionally accepted relationships to be challenged. The territorial emphasis and wide scope allow innovative conclusions to be drawn about the comparative development of the nobility in different geographical areas.
Understanding the Creative Commons
Most people who contribute information to the Internet through blogs or social media likely do not realize that any original work they put onto the Internet is automatically covered by copyright law. In 1988, the United States joined 164 other countries in the world in ratifying what is known as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, usually referred to simply as the Berne Convention. If all of your original work is automatically protected, that means that everyone else is also protected for their original work. This copyright protection is automatic and does not require any kind of notice or claim. This means that even if there is no copyright notification on a website, the content may still be covered by copyright law. For further information see Circular 1 of the United States Copyright Office.
Because all original work published to the Internet is automatically covered by copyright laws, there needed to be a middle ground. Some people simply wish to share their work on the Web and do not want to bother with claims for copyright. For this reason, the Creative Commons was created as an alternative to making claims for complete copyright protection. It is important to understand that copyright laws only protect your original work, if you copy some other work or incorporate it in your publication, you may be violating someone's copyright claim.
The Creative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization founded in 2001 dedicated to expanding the legal rights normally restricted by copyright law. Over time, CC has created innovative copyright licenses called Creative Commons Licenses, which provide a reasonable flexible alternative to asserting a claim to a full copyright.[1]
The various CC Licenses enable those who create works, especially for publication on the Internet, with a means to reserve those rights they wish to preserve and waive other specifically defined rights for the benefit of the users. As described by Wikipedia, CC replaces “individual negotiations for specific rights between copyright owner (licensor) and licensee, which are necessary under an "all rights reserved" copyright management with a "some rights reserved" management employing standardized licenses for re-use cases where no commercial compensation is sought by the copyright owner. The result is an agile, low overhead and cost copyright management regime, profiting both copyright owners and licensees. Wikipediais using one of its licenses.” [2]
Simply put, the Creative Commons provides a standardized way to give the public permission to use your original work, without losing your basic copyright claims, on conditions of your choice. This is done through a series of copyright licenses designed to give different levels of permission. The licenses are designed to ensure that the owner of the copyright gets credit for their work.
Before you can choose to use a Creative Commons license, there are some concepts you need to understand. First, is the concept of a license. When you own a copyright to an original work, you can enter into a contract to sell or license that ownership right. If you license the right, you are not selling all of your interest, just a portion of it based on the conditions contained in the license. If you allowed others to copy your work without defining your interest, you risk losing your copyright. So, allowing copies of your work subject to a license, helps you preserve your basic rights.
The Creative Commons has designed three layers of protection for its licenses; a legal code layer, a human readable layer and a machine readable layer. This is explained by the following quote from the Creative Commons website:
Because all original work published to the Internet is automatically covered by copyright laws, there needed to be a middle ground. Some people simply wish to share their work on the Web and do not want to bother with claims for copyright. For this reason, the Creative Commons was created as an alternative to making claims for complete copyright protection. It is important to understand that copyright laws only protect your original work, if you copy some other work or incorporate it in your publication, you may be violating someone's copyright claim.
The Creative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization founded in 2001 dedicated to expanding the legal rights normally restricted by copyright law. Over time, CC has created innovative copyright licenses called Creative Commons Licenses, which provide a reasonable flexible alternative to asserting a claim to a full copyright.[1]
The various CC Licenses enable those who create works, especially for publication on the Internet, with a means to reserve those rights they wish to preserve and waive other specifically defined rights for the benefit of the users. As described by Wikipedia, CC replaces “individual negotiations for specific rights between copyright owner (licensor) and licensee, which are necessary under an "all rights reserved" copyright management with a "some rights reserved" management employing standardized licenses for re-use cases where no commercial compensation is sought by the copyright owner. The result is an agile, low overhead and cost copyright management regime, profiting both copyright owners and licensees. Wikipediais using one of its licenses.” [2]
Simply put, the Creative Commons provides a standardized way to give the public permission to use your original work, without losing your basic copyright claims, on conditions of your choice. This is done through a series of copyright licenses designed to give different levels of permission. The licenses are designed to ensure that the owner of the copyright gets credit for their work.
Before you can choose to use a Creative Commons license, there are some concepts you need to understand. First, is the concept of a license. When you own a copyright to an original work, you can enter into a contract to sell or license that ownership right. If you license the right, you are not selling all of your interest, just a portion of it based on the conditions contained in the license. If you allowed others to copy your work without defining your interest, you risk losing your copyright. So, allowing copies of your work subject to a license, helps you preserve your basic rights.
The Creative Commons has designed three layers of protection for its licenses; a legal code layer, a human readable layer and a machine readable layer. This is explained by the following quote from the Creative Commons website:
Our public copyright licenses incorporate a unique and innovative “three-layer” design. Each license begins as a traditional legal tool, in the kind of language and text formats that most lawyers know and love. We call this the Legal Code layer of each license. But since most creators, educators, and scientists are not in fact lawyers, we also make the licenses available in a format that normal people can read — the Commons Deed (also known as the “human readable” version of the license). The Commons Deed is a handy reference for licensors and licensees, summarizing and expressing some of the most important terms and conditions. Think of the Commons Deed as a user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath, although the Deed itself is not a license, and its contents are not part of the Legal Code itself. The final layer of the license design recognizes that software, from search engines to office productivity to music editing, plays an enormous role in the creation, copying, discovery, and distribution of works. In order to make it easy for the Web to know when a work is available under a Creative Commons license, we provide a “machine readable” version of the license — a summary of the key freedoms and obligations written into a format that software systems, search engines, and other kinds of technology can understand. We developed a standardized way to describe licenses that software can understand called CC Rights Expression Language (CC REL) to accomplish this.[3]Before trying to use a Creative Commons license, it is important to understand each of the six different license levels. The levels include decisions based on attribution, derivation, commercial vs. noncommercial and share alike. Attribution is a requirement that anyone who uses your content must give you credit. The basic Creative Commons license requires only attribution. Derivation means using your content to create another work that includes your original work as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you. The other levels of Creative Commons licenses add restrictions on commercial use and restrict usage to situations where your original license is not made available in a less restrictive manner. This is called ShareAlike. Creative Commons licenses are valuable tools for anyone who publishes their original work on the Internet and it is important to understand these options.
[1] Wikipedia:Creative Commons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons, accessed 1 September 2012.
[2] Wikipedia:Creative Commons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons, accessed 1 September 2012.
[3] Creative Commons, About Licenses, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/, accessed 1 September 2012.
Additions and Corrections
The ownership and partnerships of the genealogical community is getting so complicated that I missed a couple of things I should have mentioned in the last post and need to correct some mis-impressions.
Ancestry.com also owns Fold3.com which was previously known as Footnote.com. Ancestry.com also owns Genline.com, the Swedish database. I have written about these in previous posts, but I should have included them for the update.
WorldVitalRecords.com is now owned by MyHeritage.com. It is WorldVitalRecords.com that has the Content Partnerships with the list of companies. I did not mean to suggest that MyHeritage.com owned the companies in the list. I also failed to point out that MyHeritage.com owns FamilyLink.com.
Ancestry.com also owns Fold3.com which was previously known as Footnote.com. Ancestry.com also owns Genline.com, the Swedish database. I have written about these in previous posts, but I should have included them for the update.
WorldVitalRecords.com is now owned by MyHeritage.com. It is WorldVitalRecords.com that has the Content Partnerships with the list of companies. I did not mean to suggest that MyHeritage.com owned the companies in the list. I also failed to point out that MyHeritage.com owns FamilyLink.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)