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

Re: Option 3

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 14:36:29 +0000
To: HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110309143629.GL4544@stripey.com>
Doug Jones writes:

> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.

That's "probably". If we agree this is a situation we wish to be allowed
then only "probably" allowing it is a failure. What's the disadvantage
in definitely and unambiguously allowing it?

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

What benefit is gained by having authorization of the W3C?

Smylers
-- 
http://twitter.com/Smylers2
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 14:36:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:25 GMT