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

Re: Spec license

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:18:49 -0600
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <86D2D1F6-DCCF-4B43-AC90-43E18A22C49D@robburns.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>

Hi David,

On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:41 PM, L. David Baron wrote:

> 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.

Point well taken. That is the type of change I alluded to that makes  
this a more pressing issue. And since we are currently talking about  
dividing the labor, then I would agree it needs more immediate  

Perhaps WhatWG would agree to host mirrored spec development for any  
HTML WG editors and the W3C will agree to extend the same copyright  
privileges to any other editors. Then with the agreement of all  
involved (including any new editors), everything will be covered in  
terms of permissible licensing.

Or perhaps the W3C will agree to the same licensing terms as the  
WhatWG mirror.

Take care,
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 23:19:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:42 UTC