[whatwg] HTML 5: Wording of "license" link type is too narrow
ian at hixie.ch
Wed May 28 00:07:59 PDT 2008
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
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.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg