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
