James M Snell wrote:
> Second note to self: After thinking about this a bit more, I would
> also need a way of specifying a null license (e.g. the lack of a license).
> For instance, what if an entry that does not contain a license is
> aggregated into a feed that has a license. The original
> lack-of-license still applies to that entry regardless of what is
> specified on the feed level. Golly Bob, you're right, this is
> rather messy ain't it. Hmm...
My apologies for not having more clearly pointed this out in my
original message. The problem is exacerbated for folk like us at PubSub
since we would feel completely comfortable in claiming copyright over the
"collection" of entries that we pass along to our subscribers, however,
there is *no way* that we could even hint at claiming copyright over the
individual entries themselves. If statements made at the feed level are
"inherited by" or "in the scope of" the entries, then we would not be able
to assert a copyright claim at the feed level since it would "leak" down to
the entries.
Of course, one might argue that since we at PubSub will virtually
always ensure that any entry we publish has an atom:source element, one
could argue that we don't have to worry about this scope leakage. But, we're
a special case in this regard. The general issue of scope exists in cases
where the atom:source element is not present.
bob wyman
