[microformats-discuss] reblogging & License

[Ryan King]

On Jul 14, 2005, at 6:39 PM, Eran wrote:
>> License info? I think its been used by more people than you'd
>> expect- it comes built into the code snippet that CC provides.
>
> That's cool but most online content is not under CC. I doubt CNN will
> use CC as a license but they will definitely be a popular target for
> reblogging.

Right. Of course, you don't need to link to a license. By default,  
its "all rights reserved." So, I don't think CNN would even need to  
link to a license.

>> No, it doesn't deal with that. Is not having a machine-readable
>> license a problem?
>
> Not having machine reable license is not a problem just as not having
> machine readable reviews or events is not a problem.

Of course, there are millions of reviews, so there's no way that a  
human being could read all of them, whereas there are (at most)  
dozens of licenses; someone could read all of those (or pay their  
lawyer to).

> Having machine
> reable license has advantages though. For example, a republishing tool
> that wants to play nice (and as a result not get shut down by the
> supreme court) could use machine readable license info to decide what
> can be done with a specific bit of content. Can it be edited? Can it
> even be republished? Etc.

Right. Currently, the software developers have to know about the  
possible licenses and code to deal with them individually. Currently  
there are not enough licenses out there for this to be a problem.  
(and, having few licenses is good :))

-ryan