+1. Another good edit. I've started working on draft 11 with these edits.
- James Bob Wyman wrote: > There is, I think a bit of tortured text in James Snell's otherwise > useful License ID[1]. > > 1.3. Terminology > ... > The term "license" refers to a potentially machine-readable > description of explicit rights, and associated obligations, that > have been granted to consumers of an Atom feed or entry. > > The problem is the underlined clause... One can't "grant" an obligation. > (When you have a conjunction, you should be able to scan the sentence > with only one element of the conjunction without losing meaning...) As > written, the sentence can be read by nitpicking lawyers as: "The term > 'license' refers to obligations that have been granted..." Clearly, this > isn't the intent. Thus, I propose the following rewording: > > The term "license" refers to a potentially machine-readable > description of explicit rights that have been granted to consumers > of an Atom feed or entry. Rights granted by a license may be > associated with obligations which must be assumed by those > exercising those rights. > > I realize that this is a bit more wordy than the existing text, however, > I think it better perserves the author's intent. Also, it has the nice > attribute of limiting the discussion of "obligations" to the scope of > rights granted by the licenses -- not rights that might exist in the > absence of the license. Nothing we do should encourage people to use > in-feed or in-entry data to restrict rights which exist independent of > an explicit license grant. Such rights may include fair-use rights, the > right to create backups, the implied right to syndicate, etc. As with > Creative Commons licenses, I believe our goal here should be to provide > mechanisms to expand the rights granted -- not to restrict them. > > bob wyman > > [1] > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-10.txt >
