- From: Arne Johannessen <arne@thaw.de>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:24:06 +0200
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™ 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. Agreed. > 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 01:24:06 UTC