* Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-06 11:45]: > On 2006-09-05 15:11:22 -0700, James M Snell wrote: > > Take, for instance, Sam Ruby's Planet feed > > (http://planet.intertwingly.net/atom.xml). This feed > > consists of entries that originated from many different > > sources, some of which may have license links, some that > > might not. If Sam decided to put a license link at the feed > > level, and if license links were inherited, it would mean > > that Sam's license would be extended over resources he may > > have no right to license. Obviously, that's wrong. > > Obviously, that's not obvious. Who are we to tell that Sam > hasn't obtained the right to attach these licenses out-of-band?
That may be a good point in this instance, but an irrelevant one. James’ points out that there may be feeds where the feed publisher has the rights to the feed as a collection, but not to the content of individual entries. Since these cases exist, it would be a bad idea for the licence to inherit from the feed to entries in it. Whether Sam in particular is or is not in that position does not affect the principle. He’s not, btw: he republishes my content, but he has no permission from me to relicense it. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
