Comments on: RSS, SSE and CC

By: Whirlycott / Philip Jacob » Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise

Whirlycott / Philip Jacob » Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:04:08 +0000

[...] Interesting to observe that Microsoft did not include their RSS extensions (called SSE) in this list of specifications covered by their promise, a problem that I highlighted almost a year ago. [...]

By: Ascription is an Anathema to any Enthusiasm » Blog Archive » Stick-up — Part II

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:13:23 +0000

[...] Philip Jacob asks a question about what exactly a recent spec out of Microsoft. In particular what are his rights and responsibilities if he decides to use or implement it. [...]

By: Gabriel Mihalache

Gabriel Mihalache — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:43:32 +0000

Have you tried searching the EFF.org or even emailing them? They monitor licensing issues, I think.

By: Philip Jacob

Philip Jacob — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:26:25 +0000

I’m not suggesting that I would want to implement SSE. I simply was reading the spec to have an understanding of it when I started wondering about these questions.

I’m also raising a larger question about the meaning of a specification (i.e. RSS 2.0) licensed under a Creative Commons license.

By: Gabriel Mihalache

Gabriel Mihalache — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:45:52 +0000

Not to sidestep the discussion, but why would you want to implement Microsoft’s SSE?

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:25:04 +0000

It would seem to me that releasing the spec under CC simply gives people the ability to redistribute your spec. I would say its kind of like writing a song about how to build a rocking chair, which could be done independently of you having or not having, the patent/right to actually do so.

You know when you see “reasonable” that the lawyers are involved. That little word keeps most of them employed, and if you ask them (I have asked more than a few), they consider it an “objective” standard.