W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > May 2008

Re: [whatwg] HTML 5: Wording of "license" link type is too narrow

From: Arne Johannessen <arne@thaw.de>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:24:06 +0200
Cc: WHAT WG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, public-html-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <DE59EBB0-9061-4619-8F38-B66A6F4E303A@thaw.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Dave Hodder wrote:
>> The scope of the "license" link type in section 4.12.3 seems too  
>> narrow
>> to me.  It's presently described like this:
>>    Indicates that the current document is covered by the copyright
>>    license described by the referenced document.
>> I think the word "copyright" should be removed, allowing other  
>> types of
>> intellectual property licence to be specified as well.  As a use  
>> case,
>> take for example a piece of documentation that is Apache-licensed:
>>    <p>This piece of useful documentation may be used under the
>>    terms of the <a rel="license"
>>    ref="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0">Apache License,
>>    Version 2.0</a>.  Please note that Example&#8482; is a trademark
>>    of Example.com Enterprises.</p>
>> The license link not only refers to copyright law, but also trademark
>> law and patent law.
> Sure, the license can cover things other than copyright. But it is
> primarily a copyright license, and that is the part that the  
> rel="license"
> keyword is referring to. The copyright license being part and parcel  
> of a
> bigger license isn't a problem, IMHO.


> In particular, we don't want people to use rel=license to point to
> trademark licenses or patent licenses that _aren't_ copyright  
> licenses.

Why not, what's the downside?

What is the correct way to mark up links to, say, a trademark license  
_not_ covering copyright, given the current draft of the spec?

Arne Johannessen
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 08:24:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:24 UTC