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

Re: Option 3

From: Doug Jones <doug_b_jones@me.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:18:51 -0500
Message-id: <CA866DC1-8D26-404A-BB04-B42D1F4DD13B@me.com>
To: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>, HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>

On 2011 Mar 09, at 07:27, Smylers wrote:

> Doug Jones writes:
> 
>> - Any work describing a change to how something in the W3C HTML5
>>  specification is to behave (like adding an attribute to an element)
>>  by changing only that part of the wording and
>>     -- republishing the work as the W3C HTML5 *or* the HTML5
>>        specification is *not* permitted.
>>     -- publishing it as a separate document not claiming to be a
>>        technical specification is OK, although not authorized.
>>     -- publishing it as a separate document *and* claiming to be a
>>        technical specification and not including or implying 'HTML' or
>>        'W3C' in the title is OK, although not authorized.
> 
> Hi. I'm still struggling to follow this. What's the difference
> between 'OK' and 'authorized'?
> 
> Surely I am either permitted to do something with the spec text or I am
> not -- I don't understand what the third category is.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Smylers
> -- 
> http://twitter.com/Smylers2
> 


Within Lawrence Rosen's reply to Ian is

"So W3C probably can't actually use copyright law to prevent the forking of a
specification no matter how desperately some W3C members want to do that.
But don't demand that W3C give you explicit permission to do so. That is
demanding too much of a standards organization that also has its trademarks
to protect."

So my 'OK' is that you can publish, but it is without the explicit permission (authorization) of the W3C.

-Doug Jones
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 14:19:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:23 UTC