• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Subject: Re: RDDL: Can we add a "copyright" version
• From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:15:08 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1077303022.10752.1127.camel@delleric>
• References: <1077268346.10746.948.camel@delleric> <1077270239.10741.1015.camel@delleric> <003101c3f7d4$da546fc0$bddc9b3e@baron> <1077303022.10752.1127.camel@delleric>

Eric,

> On Fri, 2004-02-20 at 18:13, Andreas Sewe wrote:
>>> Not really: I meant a copyright purpose rather than version :-( .
>>
>> Wouldn't "license" be a better name serving the same purpose? To me
>> "copyright" sounds more restrictive than "license" - and more
>> restrictive than necessary as well.
>
> Yes, you're right, licence is more general than copyright.

I'll add it to the "well known" list of RDDL purposes. I assume there 
isn't a similar Dublin Core property that could be used instead?

Jonathan

• References:
  • RDDL: Can we add a "copyright" version
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: RDDL: Can we add a "copyright" version
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: RDDL: Can we add a "copyright" version
    • From: "Andreas Sewe" <sewe@r...>
  • Re: RDDL: Can we add a "copyright" version
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Pull Parsing, was Re: Piccolo Java SAX parser and othersin the wild?
• Next by Date: Re: RDDL: Can we add a "copyright" version
• Previous by thread: Re: RDDL: Can we add a "copyright" version
• Next by thread: RE: XML publishing frameworks and software methodologies
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread