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

Re: Option 3

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:04:59 +0100
Message-ID: <4D889E7B.7030504@opera.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>, public-html@w3.org, PSIG <member-psig@w3.org>
On 03/22/2011 12:26 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> The FSF maintains otherwise and have publicly stated so[2]. It is my
> understanding that if this license is approved by the W3C that the FSF
> will take a similar position on this option. This is based on my
> understanding of the outcome when actual lawyers employed by W3C member
> companies talked to actual lawyers of the FSF who were involved in the
> drafting of the GPL license.

Hmm, maybe I misread the thread, but I thought the Google lawyers 
claimed something different. In particular

"""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.""" [1]

Presumably these apparently-conflicting claims could only be resolved if 
it is acceptable under the GPL to have such a field of use restriction. 
My belief was that it is not. If my belief is wrong, it would be nice to 
have a clear explanation of why it is wrong rather than just "some 
lawyers said so". If I have misunderstood for some other reason it would 
be nice to get a clear explanation of what I have misunderstood.

(note: none of the above should be read as endorsement for a particular 
outcome or set of requirements. I am just trying to understand the 
situation and, as the thread has gone on, I feel I have become less 
enlightened, not more).

Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 13:05:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:11 UTC