That means that, in some use cases, setting a default is the wrong thing to do. That's the same limitation you have for atom:rights. It's a limitation that can be stated in the specification. But I don't see how it is a limitation that means there must not be a default license feature available to those who decide to use it. -- Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 2006-09-06 06:51:00 -0700, James M Snell wrote: > From: James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: John Panzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Mike Linksvayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Adida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Lisa Dusseault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > atom-syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 06:51:00 -0700 > Subject: Re: atom liense extension (was Re: [cc-tab] *important* heads > up) > List-ID: <atom-syntax.imc.org> > X-Spam-Level: > > > The problem with specifying a per-feed default license is that there is > currently no way of explicitly indicating that an entry does not have a > license or that any particular entry should not inherit the default > feed-level license. > > - james > > Thomas Roessler wrote: > > On 2006-09-05 22:02:59 -0700, John Panzer wrote: > > > >> Here's my rationale: Atom has explicit support in the core RFC > >> 4287 syntax for 'synthetic' feeds containing entries from > >> multiple sources produced by multiple authors with different > >> copyrights. RSS 2.0 doesn't have this core support. So in the > >> case of Atom, the issue is a bit more urgent. So tackling the > >> Atom case first makes sense to me. > > > > This is an important use case for having per-item license links. > > > > I do not see, however, how this is a reason against having per-feed > > default licenses, consistent with atom:rights. Note, in particular, > > that an aggregating party may very well be in a position to make > > licensing assertions about all the entries in a feed. > > > >
