Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] Call for volunteers: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:47:57 -0400

Normally I'd pull from the pool of Applications Area experts.  However, I
haven't gotten the round-robin data base or the other accoutrements of the
review process on line.  There is a deadline looming, so it would be good to
just get this one done.

Please respond to me directly if you can do the review.

Document:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt

IETF LC ends: 11-Sep-2006

--
- Eric

------ Forwarded Message
From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:48:12 -0400
To: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>, James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Conversation: Expert review requested for
draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt
Subject: Expert review requested for draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt

Hi Eric,

Can you assign an expert Apps reviewer for this draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt

It's in IETF Last Call, so end of that last call would be the
suggested deadline (Sept 11).

Thanks!

Lisa

------ End of Forwarded Message

_______________________________________________
APPS-REVIEW mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review

---

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 15:55:37 +0200

Some notes from a very quick read (you'll want to complement this
with another review):

- What's the relationship between licensing information contained in
  a license-type link and licensing information contained in an
  atom:rights element?

  The example under 2.1 in the I-D suggests that the atom:rights is
  expected to reflect the license that is identified in the link
  element.  However, there seems to be no machine-readable way to
  express that connection.
  
  Also, there can be multiple license links, but only one rights
  element.

- An atom:rights element on a feed sets the default for the
  atom:rights elements on entries; a license link on a feed,
  however, is expected to apply to the metadata and NOT to the
  entries.

  Why the difference in inheritance rules and semantics?

- It's probably worth noting that there are jurisdictions in which
  databases enjoy sui generis legal protection (e.g., the EU).  In
  such jurisdictions, it might be reasonable to have license
  information that refers to the collection, not just to its
  metadata.

- The following statement:

    Entry content might include or reference material from other
    sources. Licenses associated with an entry MUST NOT be assumed
    to cover such material.  Implementations cannot necessarily
    trust that publishers have the right to license material claimed
    to be covered by any associated license.  Care should be taken
    when making decisions based on the referenced license.

  ... takes all of the value out of this scheme.  The very point of
  annotating content (even aggregate content) with a license is that
  this license be trusted.

Summary: The relationship to atom:rigts should be cleaned up.  The
questions above about what precisely a license applies to probably
points at a problem in terms of expressivity of the linking scheme
-- an argument could be made that there should be machine-readable
ways to express what precisely a license link is supposed to apply
to. Something like rel={content-license, dataset-license,
entry-default-license}?

Overall, this document looks like it is in dire need of serious
review from legal experts -- e.g., from the Creative Commons
community.  

I'll point some contacts in that general area at the ongoing last
call.

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C   <[email-masked]>

On 2006-09-01 19:47:57 -0400, Eric Burger wrote:
> From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:47:57 -0400
> Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] Call for volunteers: Expert review requested for
> List-Id: Applications Review List <apps-review.ietf.org>
> X-Spam-Level: 
>