On 2006-09-06 12:21:24 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > 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.
The conclusion here is fallacious: These cases are a use case for having license annotations on the feed level. As I said elsewhere, I'm fine with that. However, this does not mean that the capability to set a licensing default on the feed level is a bad thing by itself -- in particular when that is how the other mechanism works. We are simply talking about different use cases, and violently agreeing that it's a bad thing to confuse these. So, here's the proposal: - Use <link rel="license"/> for entry licenses -- either on the feed level, setting a default analogous to what atom:rights does, or on the element level. - Introduce <link rel="collection-license"/> (or whatever else you find suitable) for licenses about the collection, to be used only on the feed level. Regards, -- Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
