Hello Bjoern, Please take a look at the latest draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt - James Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * 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"?
