- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 13:23:56 -0800
- To: "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>
- Cc: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu> wrote: > It seems that that is not the intent. From the use cases document[1]: I'm not sure which exact "that" you are referring to here? It would be helpful if you didn't top I do think the intent is good here (apart from the fact that it forbids forking). However I do think work needs to be done to the draft to ensure that the language in the license reflects that intent. > I'm not sure that permissive open source licenses work for specs. Open source software flourishes under the ability to re-use freely. Have other specs flourished under a copyleft regimen? Is that what folks are arguing for here? I'm just trying to make sense of the discussion, having not quite wrapped my head around what is at stake here, I suppose. I am not arguing for a copy-left license. In fact, several people have specifically asked for a license compatible with the MIT license, which a copy-left license wouldn't be. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 21:24:36 UTC