Declaring property belonging to someone else as a national treasure is a highly contentious issue that is often litigated. It is an odd model to follow when I t

Declaring property belonging to someone else as a national treasure is a highly contentious issue that is often litigated. It is an odd model to follow when I think the author really just wants to convince Yahoo! to tread very carefully with a product feature. The problem with his post is that it doesn't even attempt to point out what's in it for Yahoo!, the owners of Flickr. You can hold the position that there doesn't need to be anything in it for Yahoo! to declare this a "national treasure", but then you are fundamentally for redefining the internet and putting in a control body to dictate API versioning just like we have a local control body to dictate what is considered historic. May be I am taking this analogy too far but that is my point: analogies without explicitly stated boundaries are almost meaningless in communicating your position.