Clearer protection

[HansOlsson]

Closes #3622

In particular:

• Be consistent with examples, I don't know why we have claimed that "Authorization" was in Protection.
• Be more explicit with nested records.

[henrikt-ma]

Wouldn't it look cleaner like this,

Suggested change

	record IntLicense "Internal class name, do not use"
	record IntLicense "Type of Protection.License"

or without any description at all?

Suggested change

	record IntLicense "Internal class name, do not use"
	record IntLicense

[HansOlsson]

The problem is that we want to avoid two things:

• Use of the class name, i.e., annotation(Protection(License=UserLicense(...
• Having annotations of the form annotation(UserLicense(libraryKey=... (as if were a normal annotation-record).

To me just saying that the class name is internal seems the simplest way to achieve that.

An alternative to this description would be to have it as a separate segment and state that it is internal before that.

[henrikt-ma]

Somewhere below here, the default behaviors should be explained:

Suggested change

	\end{lstlisting}
	\end{lstlisting}
	If \lstinline!startDate! or \lstinline!expirationDate! are empty (the default), the license has no start day or expiration date, respectively.

[HansOlsson]

Will add a reformulated version.

[henrikt-ma]

The cleanup looks good to me, but since System Modeler does not implement this annotation, I am not in a good position to provide a review with approval.