* James M Snell wrote: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-06.txt
I do not understand section 4, it says the security considerations of RFC 4287 apply; the only consideration there that could apply is that IRIs are used, and as such considerations of RFC 3987 apply. The actual registration then says there are no security considerations for the new link relation. I think both sections should say the same, and if security is truly irrelevant to the link relation, it should say that. Perhaps you might to say something like, when used in Atom documents, the security considerations for handling links in Atom documents apply. I would personally like to see some note that implementations cannot necessarily trust that the publisher has the right to license material claimed to be covered by the license, and that care should be taken when making decisions based on the license reference, such as republishing the content. The third paragraph in section 3 seems overly verbose to me, is there no terminology introduced in RFC 4287 that could be used and/or re- ferenced instead of the verbose discussion? Or is this assumed to be the case already, and the "Implementors should note" non-normative note just re-states what is stated elsewhere in the draft or the Atom specification? I do not quite understand feed-level licenses, the draft just says what they don't cover, not what they do cover. Say I make a feed with the five most insightful blog postings on international politics and I license the feed under the most permissive license possible. Can you then copy my list of entries over to your top five list? Just the IRIs, or also the summary I wrote for those entries? What if I copied the summary over from the original feed (assuming, e.g., I may copy those, but you may not, for some twisted legal reason)? If I relate the license to the entries, would the license cover my summary and the third party entries, or just my summary, or just the content of the third party entry? Should atom:source be used in such scenarios specifically for license reasons? I think the concept of "informational content" used to explain some of these things is too unclear to me to answer these questions. I think the reference to "copyright licenses" is a bit unfortunate. Why is this reference to "copyright" necessary? -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
