Re: Worrisome trend in syndication content

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

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Brickley" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <jpalfrey-NSUg5Meegb4GniliKUt/[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: [syndication] Worrisome trend in syndication content


> * Doug Ransom <doug.ransom-cmaem7PIVQRoiclzN/[email protected]> [2003-07-10 21:17-0700]
> > Dave Winer wrote:
> >
> > >Imagine my surprise when I found that pointer led to my site.
> > >
> > tinyurl is just a shortcut mechanism, so uris don'g get too long in
> > email or in web pages (mapquest and amazon links just get ridiculsly
> > long).  Don't read too much into that, I use tinyurl a lot.
> >
> > Legal stuff aside, how do you feel about syndication of content via RSS,
> > and how should apps like daypop determine if a feed should not be
> > syndicated?
>
> Wasn't Creative Commons created for just such purposes?
>
> See http://www.creativecommons.org/
>
> Though I'm not sure their current set of licenses / categories will have
> anything that'll draw the fine-grained distinction necessary to capture
> Dave's concern regarding Mark's usage of scripting.com content.
>
> Hmm looking at http://www.creativecommons.org/learn/licenses/ is this
> just a case of "No Derivative Works"? Their summary is
> "You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim
> copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it."
>
> Dave, does that capture your concern? If not, is there some refinement
> to their license which could be expressed within the same basic
> approach?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/