[Bug 13423] Remove the Editing APIs section. It's extremely incomplete and contradicts my editing spec on a lot of points, so it will confuse implementers.

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13423

--- Comment #39 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2011-08-19 19:31:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> (In reply to comment #34)
> > Just to ensure we're all clear on copyright and patents, following is a rather
> > good description of the differences between the two:
> 
> Shelley, we all know the difference between copyrights and patents.  

I wasn't sure when I read the following:

"Aryeh has made it clear that his spec is under an open license, and that W3C
(or anyone else) can use it.  How could W3C have a problem with that?"

Since the "open license" only covered the text, not the ideas expressed in the
text. 

However, neither here nor there...

> 
> 
> > "Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects
> > inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the
> > copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be."
> > 
> > I'm not a lawyer, but this tells me that a free to use copyright on Aryeh's
> > text only covers the text, not the idea. We can copy the text, but this 
> > doesn't cover implementation. 
> > 
> > If we implement the idea, then we're running into potential patent problems. 
> > 
> > This is from the US Copyright Office[1]. I imagine the same or something
> > similar applies in other countries. 
> > 
> > That's why the location of the document matters.
> 
> Yes, and that's why it's good that he's bringing it to a Community Group
> (assuming he follows through on joining the CG, which is his stated intent). 
> CGs have both a patent policy and a copyright policy:
>  http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/
> 
> But it's not enough for Aryeh alone to make patent (and copyright)
> commitments... since this spec is based on the technical work of others,
> including browser vendors like Microsoft (who started the work originally), he
> isn't the one who is likely to control the patents (and neither is Google)...
> this is why we need, at some point, to either get the key stakeholders (i.e.
> likely patent holders) to make patent commitments, either by joining the CG, or
> though bringing the Editing API spec, once it is mature, to a WG that has those
> stakeholders in it... probably the HTML WG.
> 
> This is not a new issue with Community Groups... getting the right stakeholders
> in a group is always a concern at W3C.  CGs are actually a very interesting and
> potentially powerful tool to make standardization faster and easier while still
> getting patent commitments.
> 
> I'm very happy to see Aryeh kicking the tires on this new activity:
> https://plus.google.com/100662365103380396132/posts/TSCsoGYSC2h
>

If the preference is to begin work on this in the CG and then eventually move
it over to the REC track in the HTML WG then I'm not as concerned. It seems to
me to be a little backwards, since the text is already in the HTML WG, but
whatever.

As long as everyone agrees that's the goal of this move: to get all relevant
parties on board on the document, and then to move it into the REC track. That
the intention is _not_ to keep it indefinitely in the CG.


> So, in relation to this bug, I don't have a strong opinion on whether the text
> is removed from the HTML5 spec, if the contradictions are resolved and the text
> in the HTML5 spec can be made a proper subset of Aryeh's spec, because then we
> get broader patent commitment.  If these changes can't be made, then it is
> probably better to remove it.

True, we can pursue this option by filing bugs against the text in the HTML5
spec.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 19:31:11 UTC