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

Re: HTML Working Group Decision Policy - for discussion

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:02:05 -0400
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1255010525.4137.57.camel@chacal>
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 02:20 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > My hope remains that we settle on MIT.  If the W3C and WHATWG can't  
> > come to an agreement on a license, then we will need to revisit this  
> > -- but then again, we will need to revisit a lot of assumptions, so  
> > I would recommend that we cross that bridge when we get to it.
> I think the W3C wants to hold copyright on the document, regardless of  
> the license, and probably would not want to add the copyright notices  
> of individuals.

That is correct. The issue around the meaning of "W3C Copyright" is
complex enough that I wouldn't look forward to make it even harder

> Copyright disclaimer/assignment might be implicit for  
> HTML WG members (though I can't find this spelled out anywhere, so I  
> don't really know), but from non-members we'd likely need an explicit  
> statement of some kind.

I suggest adding wording in your decision policy stating something like
that "By submitting the proposal to the HTML Working Group, you're
hereby agreeing to section 2.2:
or whatever license is used to publish the HTML 5 specification.

>  In addition, we'd probably want anyone  
> producing a Change Proposal to agree to the Patent Policy if they  
> haven't already. Again, guidance from the Team would be welcome.

Whether you want every single proposal to include statements about
copyright and patent policy is a matter of judgment. W3C leaves this up
to the Chairs and the Working Groups to decide when to explicit ask for
For example, you don't necessarily want such statement when it's simply
about a rewording of a sentence or two. If the proposed change is
technically substantial, you do want to ask for statements.
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 14:02:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:52 UTC