Re: [docbook] Limited Legalnotice?

[Fredrik Unger <fred@tree.se>]

Hi,


On 05/19/2012 10:04 PM, Thomas Schraitle wrote:

> 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.

Ok, yes, I understand, in your case it is a larger block than just an 
info and maybe multiple of them. I would still tend to also try to use 
simpler model for known license.
It would be nice to make an on-line repository, so that the author
just can include it.

<appendix>
<title>License information</title>

<para>The tool YYY is licensed under GPL 2.0</para>

<xi:include xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"; 
href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.docbook.xml"; />

<para>The library ZZZ is licensed under GPL 3.0</para>

<xi:include xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"; 
href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.docbook.xml"; />

</appendix>

Marked up once by a team?, used many times. IF someone don't like
the markup he can always patch it.


> 2. Add meta information about licenses for images, vides, audio, or text.

Maybe role="license:gpl-2.0" is better than adding a new tag.
But tools and stylesheets need more work then? To parse role.

That could also be used on any tag.

<para role="license:CC-BY-SA">
Wikipedia is a free, collaboratively edited and multilingual Internet 
encyclopedia supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.
</para>

Well, just a short quote might not need a license..

> > I would be interested to know how other people deal with this problem.
> I know, it looks very verbose in comparision to your model. :)

My thought was just that authors are not always XML (or license) 
experts, that is why I rather keep that syntax very easy to use.

Just because you want to add a small image in the document you do
not want to learn rdf. (or mark up license text..)

Sincerely,

Fredrik Unger