W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Differences between the W3C and WHATWG specifications

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:27:49 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinrBnao18E05EisKvun3Kx1ARgPLeTDkph-5GOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 22.06.2010 01:40, L. David Baron wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> The current licensing situation means that the only practical way
>> the WHATWG and W3C can work together on the same specification is if
>> all of the text originates on the WHATWG side.  That seems like an
>> ...
>
> Are you saying that all text *is* originating on the WHATWG side?

I'll let Hixie speak to this.

> Also, is it the actual text that counts, or the technical input it was based on?

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice:

What is copyrighted is the actual text and not the technical
requirements. The copyright does not prevent anyone from writing a
different text which has the same technical requirements. If you want
something that protects the technical requirements you need a patent.

The copyright also does not prevent anyone from creating a different
piece of text, with similar or wildly different technical
requirements, and calling it "HTML". If you want something that
protects the name "HTML" you need a trademark.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 07:28:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:18 UTC