- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 07:07:59 +0000 (UTC)
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. In particular, we don't want people to use rel=license to point to trademark licenses or patent licenses that _aren't_ copyright licenses. > On a related note, should the "copyright" keyword really be a synonym > for "license"? They seem to have distinct purposes to me: > > <meta name=copyright > content="Copyright 2009-2010 Example.com Enterprises"> > <link rel=license > href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" > type="text/html"> The namespace of the "name" and "rel" attributes is distinct. The name=copyright above doesn't fall into the scope of the part of the spec that defines rel=copyright as a synonym for rel=license. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 00:07:59 UTC