Elliotte Harold wrote:
John Panzer wrote:
I'm attempting to promote the use of explicit licenses in feeds, and
Creative Commons is one great source of predefined licenses suitable
for the kinds of things that people want to use feeds for today:
Creative Commons only covers a very small subset of what's needed for
feeds. It's completely inadequate for something as simple as "Don't
republish this. Period." Much less if you want to say things like,
"You can republish it but the cost is one cents per page view, and I
have the right to audit your books once per year."
That's why I said "one great source"; all the mechanisms I'm
recommending are 100% extensible.
CC covers two major use cases for feeds:
(1) Republish but not for commercial use; you can't resell it, or sell
advertising next to the content. This covers for example the Engadget
full text feed.
(2) Republish freely but maintain an attribution back to the source.
This covers the Engadget excerpt feed, which is basically advertising
for the main web site.
You're free to create your own licenses (but you'll need to pay your own
lawyers) and put them on a web site, after which you can use <link
rel="license"...> to point to them. My servers will initially not
understand those licenses, and will revert to "fair use only" type of
usage, until we upgrade our code.
--
John Panzer
System Architect, AOL
http://abstractioneer.org
