[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 7 sept. 06 à 01:29, John Panzer a écrit :
This is a critical point. Without this, implementors cannot safely
ignore licenses they don't understand (falling back to things like
"fair use" if they can't find any licenses that grant additional
copying rights). This means that implementors would likely have to
drop feeds containing new licenses on the floor, meaning that new
license schemes would never be deployed.
People with legal background will confirm or not, but "fair use"
doesn't exist in the same way in all countries.
Offering a mechanism to provide licensing information is good.
Encouraging a *legal* fallback mechanism is bad, very bad.
IMHO, when the implementors do not understand the licenses, they have
no rights to do things with content (because it's highly dependant of
local laws)
That's why I said 'things like' "fair use". Our legal department has
been having fun with this topic over the past several months. I do
agree with you that encouraging people to provide licenses is good. I
think that there are fallback mechanisms whether or not we encourage
them. I think that a fallback mechanism -- implied rights to copy for
limited purposes -- is a good thing, and whatever gets specified should
not work against it. It's an unfortunate fact that the available
mechanisms are 'squishy' and vary with local laws, but they are better
than nothing, which seems to be what you advocate.
More practically, if every feed reader and processor has to be modified
to understand a license before the license can be used in published
feeds, the ability to deploy and experiment with licenses will be
drastically reduced. Which drastically reduces the utility of having
licenses.
(Let's say that Doc Searls somehow discovers a license that would deny
sploggers more than implied rights to his content while allowing liberal
use for others[1], and deploys it. Are you saying that all of his
readers' feed software would have to drop his feed content until they're
upgraded to understand the license?)
[1] http://doc.weblogs.com/2006/08/28
