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

Re: Draft HTML5 licensing survey

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:33:03 -0700
Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Message-id: <B2431D4C-209C-4316-8275-2B79D162E8C7@apple.com>
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

On Apr 24, 2011, at 8:06 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 19:42, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Apr 24, 2011, at 11:49 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> I believe there is a nonzero number of people who would support an MIT-style license but not CC0.
> 
> With all due respect, what is the utility of asserting/supposing
> alternate 3rd party opinions [1] ?
> 
> Currently there are zero such people who have emailed the list. If
> there are such individuals, they can email the list themselves;
> otherwise hypothesizing their existence is not useful.

In this case, I have relevant first-hand knowledge. Specifically, I expect poll survey from Apple representatives would support an MIT license but not CC0. I am not interested in pushing for either of these licenses specifically. All I am suggesting is that "MIT or CC0" would be an ambiguous option which some people may have a hard time responding to. WG members are welcome to take this into account when making suggestions on construction of the poll, if they wish.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 25 April 2011 03:33:33 UTC

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