License: The URL of a copyright license that the entry is available under. (zero or more).
Question: Per feed or per entry?
Answer: Most of the discussion of the Echo model right now is focused on the Entry, so in that context the smallest unit that would have a license is "an entry". It is presumable that a <feed> or <site> would also provide for a license, and would apply to all <feed>s or <entry>s contained in them that don't say otherwise.
[AsbjornUlsberg] Uh. Copyright information could be different all the way down to each <content> element, so it is not enough to specify it on the <feed> element at least. Not on the <entry> element either, for that matter. We could have situations where an image is copyrighted by a photographer, and the other, textual content, is copyrighted by an author. Each content should therefore have uniquely associated copyright information.
[KenMacLeod] A content creator may also choose to allow subsequent redistribution of an excerpt but not of the full content. In other words, it's OK for a desktop aggregator or personalized web aggregator to display the content (as a browser would for a web page), but not OK for a aggregation site or distribution network to redistribute the full content or make it available publicly. The latter itself (distribution vs. public display) may be seperate license issues. [ZhangYining] +1, Asbjorn has hit the point, and I would like to propose that all feed, entry, and content element to have optional copyright info, and the default is derived by propagating from upper level, and explicit declaration overrides it. The problem is that content element might get complicated with nested elements if copyright is represented in element, as the example below:
<feed> <rights href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/">Creative Commons: Attribution</rights> <entry> <content type="image/jpeg"> <rights>Copyright 2003 EchoWorks. All Rights Reserved.</rights>  </content> <content> <p>this content element has the same copyright as its parent entry and the feed...</p> </content> </entry> </feed>Aparently, that's not good, so maybe this might be better:
<feed rights="cc"> <rights-list> <rights name="echo" href="http://www.echoworks.org/link/to/license">Copyright 2003 EchoWorks. All Rights Reserved.</rights> <rights name="cc" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/">Creative Commons: Attribution</rights> </rights-list> <entry> <content type="image/jpeg" rights="echo"> ...base64 encoded photo image here... </content> <content> <p>this content element and its parent entry has the same copyright as that of the feed...</p> </content> </entry> </feed>
Question: How is this going to be expressed?
Answer: at its most basic, a <rights> element could be like:
<entry xmlns="uri/to/echo/namespace/"> : : <rights>Copyright 2003 EchoWorks. All Rights Reserved.</rights> </entry>Using CreativeCommons or some other licenses which are referenced using a URI, it could be like:
<entry xmlns="uri/to/echo/namespace/"> : : <rights href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/">Creative Commons: Attribution</rights> </entry>Multiple <rights> elements may be used to indicate multiple licenses.
DublinCore defines <rights> as:
Definition: Information about rights held in and over the resource.
Comment: Typically, Rights will contain a rights management statement for the resource, or reference a service providing such information. Rights information often encompasses Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Copyright, and various Property Rights. If the Rights element is absent, no assumptions may be made about any rights held in or over the resource.