James Snell wrote: > [1] The relationship [between license and atom:right] is > subtle, but important ... > [2] I specifically wanted to differentiate the two. ... > [3] The two serve different, but related, purposes. The > two should not contradict each other. If they do, > consumers must go back to the content publisher to > resolve the problem. Given the subtle differences, the claimed importance of the differences, and their supposed utility, I would strongly suggest that these points should be clearly stated in the ID itself. It is highly unlikely that readers of an eventual RFC are going to universally come here and read the illuminating messages in the mailing list archive. Thus, the subtle distinctions that you see are highly likely to be lost once the RFC is published -- unless you document them. Also, it is more likely that reviewers will be able to make more informed judgments if these distinctions are clearly documented in the ID text.
bob wyman