On Apr 20, 2005, at 1:08 AM, Nikolas 'Atrus' Coukouma wrote:
I didn't really want to discuss the licensing mess here. The previous
discussion seemed to conclude that it was risky and out of scope. I just
wanted to note that some attempt had been made to make a
machine-readable description of licensing.
Note that a simpler form of expressing this is rel="license", as defined here:
http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/RelLicense
and adopted by Creative Commons:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-metadata/2004-February/000290.html
and generated by their license server along with the RDF form http://creativecommons.org/license/
This seems a suitable atom-like way to express this (subject to Bob's caveats about ti being a positive grant rather than a restriction).
