[microformats-discuss] reblogging & License

[Bud Gibson]

A couple of things strike me:

1.  We talk about reblogging, but I think we mean republishing in  
general.

2.  It seems a lot of content is published with the intent of being  
republished.  Calendar information, hCards, summaries of our own  
site's content.  Does licensing really apply here?

3.  The issue of identifying when a microformat is in use and what it  
applies to raises its head again here in this specific application  
(sorry Ryan, had to sneak that in :).

4.  Having different licenses apply to different pieces of content on  
a single page sounds complicated.  How would the average person  
know?  Just getting one license installed on a page seems like it is  
now the limit of most tools.

Just some thoughts,
Bud
On Jul 15, 2005, at 16:39, Ryan King wrote:


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>
>
>