True. But then again maybe Id disagree, the cc license does suggest that you should explicitly state the manner of attribution required, and just because those elements may be present in the RSS feed that isnt the same as declaring them to be a strict requirement of your cc license?
Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm am being concise because this topic comes up again and again and it's > becoming more obvious that a large group of people are licensing their > videos under CC without reading the actual license. > > There needs not be any additions to the CC namespace in RSS. > Technologically the attribution requirements are a no-brainer. The author > name, work title and URI can already be described in RSS/Atom using the > standard elements. Same in HTML which also has standardized ways of > describing author name and work title. > > - Andreas > > Den 05.01.2007 kl. 00:20 skrev Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Well I totally agree about not being able to use a cc licence and then > > add extra restrictions (cant do that, its invalid), I find your tone a > > bit off. The point is its easy to declare the attribution method using > > text, but it would be a lot nicer if that was integrated with creative > > commons technologies, specifically their RSS thing, so that this > > detail can be accurately automatically distributed along with the video. > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > --- In [email protected], "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen" > > <solitude@> wrote: But don't create extension > >> ("well, my videos are CC, but really they're CC with my own additions"). > >> > >> - Andreas > >> -- > >> Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen > >> <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen > <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ > >
