11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

A New Standard for RSS Pheeds?

by Kurt
9 replies
How and where would I propose a new standard tag for RSS (and Atom) pheeds?

I suggest the use of <license></license> tag to be used in the header of pheeds so that both publishers and authors can know and respect each others' wishes.

For example, the <license> tag could contain:
private

Which means you can't use it. All the various RSS programs could read this tag and respect the license.

Or you could have:
public

Which means it could be used.

You could allow/restrict which mediums can use your pheeds:
public=email,web,aggregator,

Then append your copyright/usage info:
public=email,web,aggregator+copyleft

or
public=email,web,aggregator+allrightsreserved

or
public=email,web,aggregator+publicdomain

This would allow for the automated use of RSS for syndicating content, while still letting authors to protect their rights and decide how and where you can use their stuff.

It would probably also offer a little more protection for the author's rights as well, by making it more clear as to what's OK and what's not.

It would also let publishers search for and only use RSS content with a particular license, such as public domain.

Sure, the cheaters would still cheat, but at least it lets those on both sides that want to play by the rules do so.
#pheeds #rss #standard
  • Profile picture of the author John Taylor
    Kurt,

    I think that's an excellent idea.

    My first port of call would be: World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
    who seem to be the keeper of lots of online standards
    and specifications.

    John
    Signature
    John's Internet Marketing News, Views & Reviews: John Taylor Online
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2089043].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
    Great idea Kurt.

    Not sure where to recommend you go with it but it's a really nice idea.

    Andy
    Signature

    nothing to see here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2089066].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    Thanks for the comment JT and Henry...

    How about we use this thread and come up with a standard we can suggest? Those with more tech knowledge about these things than me can pitch in.

    We can call it the "Warrior standard"...It kind of goes with the new WSO whitehat train of thought.

    How about the first person to volunteer that knows how to suggest a standard for this take over?

    Just keep it simple, which is what RSS is all about.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2089088].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    RSS 2.0 allows you to use any element you like, provided it is defined in a namespace as specified by the W3C.

    The problem is that you have to convince other people that your new namespace is useful, and that they should support it, and that the way you have defined it is in fact the way they should accept it as working.

    That's the problem with standards. You can tell people what to do all day long, but in the end, they'll do whatever the hell they want and you generally can't do anything to stop them.
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2089127].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

      RSS 2.0 allows you to use any element you like, provided it is defined in a namespace as specified by the W3C.

      The problem is that you have to convince other people that your new namespace is useful, and that they should support it, and that the way you have defined it is in fact the way they should accept it as working.

      That's the problem with standards. You can tell people what to do all day long, but in the end, they'll do whatever the hell they want and you generally can't do anything to stop them.
      I agree...And thanks for volunteering!

      Seriously, it's a long-shot that this will catch on, but it isn't very hard to do. And, there's a decent shot it can catch on at this forum.

      If JT or Andy (or CD) offered an RSS pheed with rights, I'd put them to use right away. And I'm sure a programer or two may create an update to read and respect the license. If not, at least the license info is in the RSS pheed.

      And if this catches on, there would be some good demand for related WP plugins, etc.

      The benefits to both sides should be obvious...But I agree, the real problem is convincing folks that the standard created is the one to be used. It's usually a case of "too many generals and not enough sgts", where everyone wants to be boss and won't follow instructions, simply because it wasn't their idea.

      OK...Anyone have specific suggestions?

      How about an "intact" attrbute? Meaning you must leave the RSS items as is? Cropping for length would be allowed.

      Or a "dofollow" attribute, meaning you can only use the RSS if the links included are all dofollow?
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2089189].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        I agree...And thanks for volunteering!
        Well, I can't deny I'm immediately attracted to the notion of solving this problem.

        OK...Anyone have specific suggestions?
        I'm pretty sure we're all comfortable with the license format included with PLR products, which is stuff like

        Something that nobody cares about [YES]
        Something that will make customers happy [YES]
        Something that will make you some money [YES]
        Something the seller thinks is rude or unethical [NO]
        Something that will make you more money than the seller [NO]
        I think that's probably the best place to look for guidance, because it's familiar and well-established. The technical format isn't what I'm looking for, so much as a list of the rights people expect to know about.

        Now, as far as public/private goes... the general rule of thumb is that if you do not have an explicit license to do something, then the answer is no. For example, if a product does not say whether you have the right to put your own name on it, you do not have the right to put your own name on it.

        So in general, I think all we need is just a list of what the rights are, and we'd end up with something like this:

        Code:
         
<imrights:license>
     <imrights:nobodycares/>
     <imrights:customershappy/>
     <imrights:somemoney/>
</imrights:license>
        We don't need a way to say you DON'T have <imrights:rudeunethical/> or <imrights:moremoney/>, because if they're not there you don't have them.

        The hardest part of all this is the documentation.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2089244].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post


          We don't need a way to say you DON'T have <imrights:rudeunethical/> or <imrights:moremoney/>, because if they're not there you don't have them.

          The hardest part of all this is the documentation.
          Hey CD and All,

          I usually agree about not having to say someone doesn't have rights...Except with the case of RSS. Many people, myself included, believe there's some "implied consent" concerning using someone else's RSS and that one is "opting in" by publishing an RSS pheed.

          Let's not debate the implied rights issue, but rather come up with a possible solution.

          I'll start with the bare-bones stuff.

          Choose one:
          <imrights:allrightsreserved/>
          <imrights:copyleft/>
          <imrights:publicdomain/>

          What other types of licenses are there?

          <URLtoLicense>http://www.copyleft.com/>

          Optional:
          <imrights:dofollow/> - requires fair linking practices if content is used.



          Hey CD...You know, you could write a free WP plugin for this, do some publicity and it could go viral. The RSS usage discussion is even bigger in the blogosphere than it is here.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2089381].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            I usually agree about not having to say someone doesn't have rights...Except with the case of RSS.
            I've been looking at the RSS2 standard, and it appears that the Right Thing in this case is to match the requirements of the Atom standard - RFC 4287 - while observing the semantics that RSS2 can accept.

            I've got a solid understanding of how to structure this sort of thing, so I can probably have an internet draft together and ready to submit to the IETF within a week or two. I've already got much of the semantic tree built in my head.

            What other types of licenses are there?
            I somewhat agree with the idea of having "macro" licenses, but we do need to get granular on it. We're all reasonably aware that "master resale rights" means we can sell our customers the right to sell their customers resale rights, but do they have the right to sell their customers MASTER resale rights? How many generations does it go down?

            Same basic concern. We need the ability for someone to license their content the way they want to license their content.

            Hey CD...You know, you could write a free WP plugin for this, do some publicity and it could go viral.
            I'm thinking very seriously on that... just need to read that book on developing WP plugins
            Signature
            "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2089411].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ButterflyGarden
    You can create an RSS feed namespace extension with any information you want. Here are some details - Create a Namespace for RSS Feeds

    HTH
    Signature
    Butterfly Gifts :: Eco Friendly Gifts :: About Whales :: About Monkeys
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2089658].message }}

Trending Topics