Le 16 août 06 à 01:16, Bjoern Hoehrmann a écrit :
* James M Snell wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-
license-06.txt
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?
hmmm.
I would not say that it's not useful but there are potentially
troubles. We should have a use case reasoning with regards to the
technology and *not* the legal aspects.
I can indeed decide to license the content for all my feed items in
one shot because I own the content. If it's the meaning of link at
the feed level, no trouble.
So with regards to the comment of Bjoern, what's missing is the scope
nature of link, not necessary if it's right or not to license a
republished content with difference license. Here it fells in the
legal part of it, which has to been handle by the civic society.
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
