[whatwg] HTML 5: Wording of "license" link type is too narrow
giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl
Wed May 28 01:44:22 PDT 2008
The correct markup for a link trademark license would be
<A HREF="tmlic.html" />™</A >
A trademark license does not apply to a Web page. It may of course apply to
the product described on the page but such information is meaningless to
HTML spiders and publishing tools; information an HTML-ignorant end user is
expected to make use of should be exposed in the language she understands,
not with specially dedicated HTML markup.
That is, of course, IMHO - I am not a lawyer.
From: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org
[mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Arne Johannessen
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:24 AM
To: Ian Hickson
Cc: WHAT WG List; public-html-comments at w3.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] HTML 5: Wording of "license" link type is too narrow
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
>> 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
>> 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
> 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
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?
More information about the whatwg