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

Re: Licensing

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:52:24 +0000 (UTC)
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Cc: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0801111046530.13181@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> 
> 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.

You still misunderstand; my point is that I am not willing to license my 
tests under _any_ license unless the W3C commits to using one of those 
three licenses for the entirety of the CSS 2.1 test suite and indeed all 
other CSS test suites, just like the HTML working group has committed to 
using the MIT license for their test suite.

In practice, the W3C document license and the W3C software license are 
violated almost every time a W3C test suite is used, including a number of 
high profile uses that I'm aware of. It is pointless for the W3C to be 
using these licenses if they are not going to be enforced. Users of these 
test suites (three of which have spoken up in this thread, including two 
of the four biggest browser vendors) should be able to use them as they 
use other test suites now without violating the license.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 10:52:35 GMT

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