Re: Feed License Draft

["John Panzer" <jpanzer@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks, that actually makes a lot of sense.  It's also helpful in 
resolving ambiguities regarding CC "NoDeriv" licences applied at the 
feed level, I think.

James M Snell wrote on 4/11/2006, 3:17 PM:

 >
 > 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
 > >  >
 > >
 >

-- 
Abstractioneer John Panzer
System Architect
http://abstractioneer.org