|Subject:||Re: [docbook] Limited Legalnotice?|
|From:||Thomas Schraitle (tom_...@web.de)|
|Date:||May 19, 2012 1:04:06 pm|
thanks for your quick reply. :-)
Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2012, 20:54:30 schrieb Fredrik Unger:
I think the use case for legalnotice is not to list licenses that needs to be included somewhere but to put a license at the beginning of a book for example.
That was also my experience. After further investigation, I laid too much into legalnotice. I've found out that it is used on the imprint of a book or article.
Most books have a Copyright statement and more before the title pages. Others would have to correct me but I think that is the background.
I guess, you are right with your assumptions.
Could you describe your use case in more detail ? Is it a software manual that needs to include for example the GPL license as a full text ?
Yes, that's the idea. For example, my current cookbook project incorporates a CC license:
At the moment, legalnotice is used as a kind of "introducery" legal material which points to the complete CC license at the end of the book. The complete license is written as an appendix though:
The license in the appendix is subdivided into several "sections". Well, that doesn't work in legalnotice. I know, it's barking at the wrong tree, but a similar element ("license"?) would bear a different semantic than appendix.
Well, I think, I was just mistaken. The intention for legalnotice was just to hold a "small" portion of a legal text. As the name implies, it's a "notice", not a whole license. :)
Regarding point 2. legalnotice can have quite some children (63) including <para>. copyright only 2. What substructures do you miss ?
The para is not the problem, it's the text cannot be subdivided into several portions. So I would have expected some section|sectX elements.
My problem was two fold as the solution shows. 
Very nice! :-)
- First to be able to mark up parts like a document or an image in a document with a short "standard" license mark. (cc.rnc) - Secondly to have such a mark produce well known output (cc.xsl) Such a extension stylesheet could also be implemented outside docbook standard distribution. In my case only a link to the license description is added. I am not sure how much of the license text has to be included in a document to be "proper", eg your case with an Appendix.
Well, IANAL, but I guess that depends on the license. Sometimes you need to explicitely incorporate it. For example, if I'm not mistaken, the GFDL forces you to attach the *complete* license into your textual work.
Maybe the use cases can be combined into a good overall solution that do not add too much new stuff to docbook..
It seems we need to distinguish between the two use cases:
1. Express a license with the appropriate DocBook element. A license is usually subdivided into several portions. 2. Add meta information about licenses for images, vides, audio, or text.
I would be interested to know how other people deal with this problem.
I guess, you could express your meta information by adding additional elements to info. This can be done either by inventing your own elements (using a different namespace than DocBook), elements from Dublin Core, or by using RDF. The advantage of this approach is, you don't have to modify the DocBook schema.
For example, in my above project, I used the latter approach to express the license of the book (taken from the CC homepage):
<info> <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc- sa/3.0/de/"> <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction"/> <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution"/> <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice"/> <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Attribution"/> <prohibits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#CommercialUse"/> <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks"/> <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#ShareAlike"/> </License> </rdf:RDF> <!-- ... --> </info>
I know, it looks very verbose in comparision to your model. :)
-- Gruß/Regards Thomas Schraitle