Re: Feed License Draft

[James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

This was specifically added in response to feedback provided on this
list.  Although I don't have the link to the original thread, the
rationale has to do with aggregated feeds.  Specifically, I may publish
an entry that does not have a license that you turn around and republish
in an aggregate feed that does have a license. If entries inherited the
licenses of their parents, that would mean that you would end up
distributing my content under a different license than what I had
originally intended, which you, of course, have no right to do.
Therefore, entries are licensed independently of the feeds in which they
happen to appear.

- James

John Panzer wrote:
> I'd like to support this in our products, and I'm curious as to why the 
> feed licence isn't inherited (by default) by the entries within a feed. 
>   Seems like this would require a lot of duplicate licence information 
> in the most common case, where the feed and its entries have exactly the 
> same licence.  It's not a huge issue but if there's a good reason why 
> this rule is in place it would be good to know.
> 
> -John Panzer
> 
> James M Snell wrote on 1/27/2006, 4:17 PM:
> 
>  >
>  > Just an editorial clean up of the draft. No significant technical
>  > changes.  This draft should now be considered complete.  I've stumbled
>  > across a number of feeds in the wild using the extension and know of at
>  > least one blog vendor and one feed reader with plans to implement.
>  >
>  > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-05.txt
>  >
>  >
>  > - James
>  >
>