W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Licensing

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:02:01 +0100
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
Message-Id: <200801111002.06220.rigo@w3.org>
Hi Ian, 

On Friday 11 January 2008, Ian Hickson wrote:
You said initially: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2008Jan/0013.html
Yes. I'm saying that I would not be willing to license my tests to the 
W3C under a different license than the 3-clause BSD, MIT, or Apache 
v2 licenses.

> > > On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> > > > By doing so, you're not compliant to any of the licenses you
> > > > mention anymore. So Google would have to refuse your tests
> > > > too.
> > >
> > > This is incorrect, and shows a somewhat fundamental
> > > misunderstanding of copyright and license law.
> >
> > ...says the lawyer
>
> I actually consulted with my team's IP lawyer, expert in open
> source software licenses, and he assures me that you are indeed
> incorrect in your assertion here. In fact his exact words were
> "this guy doesn't even make any sense". I can only assume you are
> misunderstanding the situation.

I misread your statement as "not license to W3C". If you say "license 
to W3C under 3-clause BSD, MIT, or Apache v2 licenses, this is just 
fine and a non-issue as it gives sufficient rights to W3C for 
re-publication in its testsuite. As the testsuite will be a 
derivative work of collection with rights on its own, only the 
original parts will be one of the three licenses and the rest will be 
W3C document license. All three licenses will permit that.. So sorry 
for making noise as I thought you were discriminating more than you 
really intended. 

Now let's go back to the real issues. 

Best, 

Rigo


Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 09:02:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 September 2010 17:51:55 GMT