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 > > >
