Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
I think it's a shame that these excellent comments got lost in the noise:
Than you Mark for getting away from meta-discussion about the process and getting back to the spec. And comments and discussion about that spec.
- The removal of the copyright notice. I cannot think of any good reason for a corporate copyright disclaimer on a standards specification.As I recall the notice, it isn't unreasonable.
The notice is indeed entirely reasonable. But I look at the RFCs and I don't see a copyright notice anywhere. I see an Author.
There's a subtle point here. Regardless of the role Userland took in the early development of RSS, the standard(s) are now bigger than them. I don't think it's appropriate that there is *any* Userland copyright on the spec whether they choose to give up all rights in the notice or not. This is not a dig at Userland or any other corporation that might get involved. It's a reaction to some of the ambiguity surrounding copyright and ownership by some large corporations that have been involved in the development of the web services specs.
-- Julian Bond Email&MSM: julian.bond@voidstar.com Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ CV/Resume: http://www.voidstar.com/cv/ M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173 T: +44 (0)192 0412 433