W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Spec license

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:41:48 -0800
To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090203214147.GA20381@pickering.dbaron.org>

On Tuesday 2009-02-03 14:26 -0600, Robert J Burns wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> That being said, there really aren't any options that the WebKit  
>> project "can't live with", since we can always copy IDL from the  
>> WHATWG copy of the spec, which has an extremely permissive license.  
>> However, it would be my preference that the W3C copy could be used as 
>> the canonical reference.
>
> This is a very important point that makes the issue less urgent and less 
> important however it gets resolved. Obviously licensing anywhere can 
> change by the time any subsequent drafts or the final recommendation 
> reaches completion. However, as long as the W3C has agreed to allow the 
> editor to publish HTML5 independently and the editor publishes it under a 
> more permissive license then the terms of the W3C HTML5 license are not 
> very effective. Obviously the licensing terms could change for subsequent 

Depending on this point, however, is somewhat problematic, since it
means that we can't split out parts of the spec and give them to a
different editor who doesn't independently publish under a different
license.

In other words, depending on it means some of us (e.g., me) are
going to be (at least somewhat) against splitting the spec because
of the license issues.

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 21:42:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:29 GMT