- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 23:06:11 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org, site-policy@w3.org
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: > > I don't want to go there. This process where we produce use cases, hear > nothing for weeks, and then get a response that intentionally ignores > some use cases and unintentionally doesn't satisfy others is > fundamentally broken. > > I want a dialog. > > Until we get that, my preference is that we simply reaffirm the original > use cases, indicate that we are in agreement that the draft we have seen > does not satisfy those use cases, and more carefully and succinctly > spell out the implications of these issue in terms that are relevant to > the W3C. Sam asked me to comment on whether I agree with the above or not, so, for the record, I do agree that the original use cases are (intentionally and explicitly) not all met by the proposal that was put forward, and I do think the original use cases were an accurate portrayal of the use cases that this working group has consensus on. Compatibility with open source (including GPL and LGPL projects), clear license terms (ideally reusing an existing license), and the ability to fork are all issues that working group members discussed and considered important previously. For what it's worth Google is generally opposed to license proliferation, and we would have a strong preference for reusing an existing license here. (MIT seems like the best fit, IMHO.) HTH. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 23:06:54 UTC