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
