W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [Licensing] Request to evaluate candidate HTML Document license (known as "Option 3")

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 14:40:57 -0700
Message-ID: <4D9A3AE9.4060505@mit.edu>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, licensing@mozilla.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 4/4/11 5:35 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2011, at 2:31 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> A) The license must meet the Open Source Definition and the Free Software Definition.
>> B) As a UA vendor, we want to be able to embed license text (e.g. IDL definitions) in our code, our developer documentation, etc. So the spec license needs to allow us to do that, given our existing licenses for code and documentation. This means, among other things, allowing relicensing to the MPL, LGPL or GPL (i.e. sticking it in the middle of a file which is under one, two or all three of those licenses without needing reams of additional legal text).>>
>> C) As an organization that cares about the future of the web, the spec needs to be effectively forkable as long as its made clear that the fork is not W3C-sanctioned in any way.
>
> Please note that the Mozilla Public License is limited to Software
> (Covered Code).

This affects item (B) above only, which is a non-issue anyway with the 
proposed licenses due to explicit exemptions.

> My opinion is that the above does not represent
> Mozilla's opinion in any meaningful sense

Gerv's mail states Mozilla's opinion in this instance.  You can have 
whatever opinions you choose on the matter of course.  You don't have to 
believe a word Gerv or I say.  Your prerogative.

-Boris
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 21:41:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:27 GMT