> There's a tool presented by a commenter that will take a partial feed, > scrape the content articles it refers to, and provide a full feed. > > I'm surprised how strongly I feel about this: such services must be > opt-in for each author.
I can't see any technical reason [other than software defaults] that authors/publishers can't just publish their own full feed. Hence I'd argue that the full-feed tool would be more or less redundant in an opt-in model. [Making a pretty PDF, however, is quite clever.] I'm not sure where I'd want to draw the line on the question of what processing of websites is acceptable; I would tend to argue that most forms of processing for personal use are okay unless explicitly forbidden; but where third parties are involved, they should be much more cautious; I would agree that broadersheet/fivefilters ought to ensure they have a licence to redistribute their content. A question: would you object to my hypothetical butler cutting out only the most interesting stories from the free paper, clipping them together and handing them to me? Dave. _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
