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

Re: Draft HTML5 licensing survey

From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 14:49:13 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTimqMnjnhVF7-pDXGXsR=0yCmwPLHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> MIT and CC0 are different options. Do you feel that both should be included?

I don't believe anyone who supports a permissive license feels very
strongly about which one exactly should be chosen.  For the purposes
of the present discussion, it makes the most sense to me to have a
single fourth option.  It could either ask whether we support "a
preexisting widely-used permissive license, such as MIT, CC0, or the
three-clause BSD license" (or some words to that effect); or it could
pick a single representative license, such as CC0.  I don't think it
would serve any purpose to have separate options for MIT and CC0 at
this stage.  If the W3C administration does wind up allowing a
permissive license to be used, the details can be worked out later.

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
> If we include these two options should we also include all the other similar license options that the PSIG has previously discussed?

I think a single fourth option is enough.

> I note that the WG was specifically asked to give its opinion on the three candidate licenses in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html .

Right, but while we're running the survey, I'd think it would be
useful to gauge support for a permissive license too.  Of course, when
the W3C administration takes the HTMLWG survey into account, they
could always choose to disregard support for licenses that PSIG hasn't
approved or that the AC has voted down, but at least let's be clear on
what the HTMLWG feels.
Received on Sunday, 24 April 2011 18:50:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:24 UTC