Re: [syndication] Worrisome trend in syndication content

[Dan Brickley <daniel.brickley@bristol.ac.uk>]

* Dave Winer <dave@userland.com> [2003-07-11 05:11-0700]
> Like I said in the post, I'm pretty easygoing when it comes to people using
> my RSS feeds, I publish that way so it can be used in creative ways by geeky
> people (so they in turn can make tools for non-geeky people).
> 
> But when someone is republishing my writing in total, they should ask for
> permission; I'll probably give it.
> 
> However in this case, permission was not asked for, and had it been I would
> not have given it, since I felt his purpose was to ridicule me. He can do
> that in his own words well enough.
> 
> Palfrey, who is a lawyer, (WIAL), wrote more about this in response to Doug
> Ransom's post.
> 
> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2003/07/11#a274

Thanks for the pointer. John Palfrey's posting argues for creative
commons licenses in RSS feeds, which is something I'd certainly support.
I was curious though as to whether there is some use of the current CC 
licenses that could have brought more clarity to this current dispute,
or whether some refinement would be needed to capture the concerns you 
outline above. 

FWIW it sounds like Mark has built a nifty tool that would be a much 
friendlier contribution to the community if it were applied equally against 
all RSS feeds, not just yours. I've certainly tweaked weblog posts after 
publication, and I'm sure others have too. 

Dan