Based on this and other feedback, I think I've come up with language that is much more effective. It keeps feed level licenses but very clearly specifies what they cover. I am putting the polishing touches on the draft and will send it off shortly.
- James Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > [snip[ > 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. >[snip] >> 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. > > [snip] > 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"?
