Re: Copyright notices. Was Re: Some general questions!

Tony Sanders (sanders@BSDI.COM)
Tue, 2 Aug 1994 09:20:41 +0200

Karl Auerbach writes:
> Something that uses more explicit language what a "relationship" means
> between documents. It is a very vague term. I wouldn't have guessed
> in a hundred years that it could pertain to copyright. Besides if one
Relationship is not being used in any special or obscure way. The LINK
relationships are purposefully open-ended so that you can add things like
copyright that weren't orig in the spec. If you want more explicit
language then you'll have to write it because I don't think it exists.

> looks up the currently defined registrations for REL, not any of the
> eighteen or so listed types includes any mention of copyright.
Isn't it cool the way that works.

> In other words, I don't agree that the issue is clear. I don't see
> any standardized vehicle for a publisher of a document to express
> copyright except in human language or as an attached human language
> document.
I never said there was; I said, and I quote:
If you need additional structure for the data you can define a standard
data format and assign it a MIME type (e.g., application/x-copyright).

I mearly told you how to associate this data (in any format you desire)
with the document in question.