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

Re: Draft HTML5 licensing survey

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:07:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4DB709E7.30808@intertwingly.net>
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 04/26/2011 01:55 PM, James Graham wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On 04/26/2011 12:11 PM, James Graham wrote:
>>> On 04/26/2011 05:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>>
>>>> While some sort of accommodation for input relating to additional
>>>> options is likely to be in the next draft of the poll; a specific
>>>> option
>>>> for MIT is not likely to be included as we have yet to have somebody
>>>> specifically advocate for that option.
>>>
>>> On 04/25/2011 05:33 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> > Specifically, I
>>> > expect poll survey from Apple representatives would support an MIT
>>> > license but not CC0.
>>>
>>> You may not consider this as "advocacy" but it is enough to suggest that
>>> including CC0 (which has clearly been advocated) but not MIT (which has
>>> merely been "supported") would result in significant information loss.
>>
>> Maciej understands and agrees to the bar as I stated it.
>
> That is good to know, but does not address my point.

We are not going to include unicorns into the survey simply because 
there might be somebody who might believe that they exist and weakly 
indicates that if they were to exist they might be helpful.

>> There are plenty of licenses that various people have considered and
>> rejected for one reason or another. We are not going to enumerate all
>> of them, even if somebody may expect that their company might support
>> one or more of these options.
>
> This seems to be a slippery slope argument. I don't see that it applies
> unless there is a demonstration that such a slope actually exists. What
> are the other licenses that we would be forced to include? I don't
> recall any other licenses that have been discussed by this group and got
> any serious measure of support.
>
> What is the reason for excluding options upfront? It seems bizzare to
> have a poll where options known to have support are prefiltered. It
> seems particularly strange where the discussion has indicated that the
> options being removed might represent common ground for at least some of
> the involved parties.

It is equally as bizarre to have a poll that explicitly includes an 
option over which absolutely nobody has advocated that option.

James, if you advocate for inclusion of MIT into the poll please make a 
concrete proposal and state why you believe that it is the right choice 
for this WG

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 18:08:07 UTC

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