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

(unknown charset) RE: Option 3

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:36:44 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: (unknown charset) Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>, 'HTML WG Public List' <public-html@w3.org>, PSIG <member-psig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110310083644537456.aeebdbaf@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Ian Hickson, Thu, 10 Mar 2011 05:23:50 +0000 (UTC):
>> As to whether you could publish *derivative works* of the official W3C 
>> HTML5 specifications *as a specification*, ask your own lawyer.
> 
> I did. My lawyer said in no uncertain terms that what you propose as 
> "option 3" would not let people publish derivative works of these 
> specifications as specifications. Thus, it is in our opinion unacceptable 
> as a solution to the problem of how to enable people to publish derivative 
> works of these specifications as specifications.

I suppose it was meant that you could ask your lawyer on that day when 
you feel the needed. On that day, you may feel the need to consider  
legality, choose a licence etc.

The 'apostolic succession' - and other 'methods' for claiming authority 
- comes to mind: If the W3C were to loose its authority, then you 
wouldn't ask for its authorization.  But as long as W3C is an 
authority, then it isn't interested in using its own authority to 
authorize you as a competing authority for its own domain. Analogy: The 
Pope could acknowledge that he cannot prevent you from copying the 
bishop mitre. But he - literally - cannot whether acknowledge or 
express that you become a bishop by putting the copy on your head (at 
least not without undermining his own authority or - literally - 
instantly forming - aka 'forking' - a new church). Likewise, the HTML5 
spec, including copies/forks, is not a magic text that retains its 
'specification nature' outside the body that authorized it as a spec.

A 'specification' is nothing but an 'authoritative/binding technical 
description'. I hope that it is clarified that one e.g. can use the 
spec text in a validator. But it neither seems desirable or logical to 
ask for the right to fork the spec 'as a specification'.

My $0.2
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 07:49:22 UTC

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