* James M Snell wrote: >Another concern that was raised to me by a colleague is that the license >resource being pointed to could change over time, meaning that the >license being referenced today may not be the same license being used >tomorrow even tho URIs may be exactly the same. If the license is >controlled by a different entity than the publisher of the entry, this >could cause problems.
Yeah, it would be good to have some of these things mentioned in the draft, if only to encourage people to let a lawyer review tools they may build upon this new link relation. >Unfortunately, there is no language in RFC4287 I can draw upon here. Okay, I guess this should be looked at when RFC 4287 is revised. >Yes, this should be clarified. Feed level licenses cover the metadata >of the feed (title, subtitle, etc). I've actually found very little use >for feed level licenses and would actually be quite happy to remove them >from the spec completely. I think removing it would be better, yeah. >> I think the concept of "informational content" used to explain some >> of these things is too unclear to me to answer these questions. >> >Ok I hope you can come up with a better term and/or explain this better in the draft, as I'd have similar difficulties for entries. >> I think the reference to "copyright licenses" is a bit unfortunate. >> Why is this reference to "copyright" necessary? > >Can you suggest a better term? Just "licenses"? -- 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/
