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

Re: Option 3

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:09:20 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>, public-html@w3.org, PSIG <member-psig@w3.org>
Message-id: <995A2496-BFE9-4442-A61A-DF25FD6547DB@apple.com>
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>

For those in the HTML WG who have W3C Member access and want more information, I recommend reading the member-psig archives for more context on this issue.

Regards,
Maciej

On Mar 22, 2011, at 7:54 AM, James Graham wrote:

> On 03/22/2011 03:21 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
>> As for the mandates of the GPL, the only thing that the GPL prohibits is
>> "further restrictions" [1] and Option 3 has no such. There are no
>> limitations or restrictions that would have to be passed on to downstream
>> licensees.
>> [1] From GPLv3: "All other non-permissive additional terms are considered
>> "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as
>> you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
>> governed by this License *along with a term that is a further restriction,*
>> you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further
>> restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you
>> may
>> add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license
>> document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such
>> relicensing or conveying." [Emphasis between * * is added]
> 
> OK, so I don't understand why the text "to facilitate implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this document" doesn't count as a restriction. If it doesn't count as a restriction, what effect does it have? Could we elide it from the license without substantively changing the meaning?
> 
>> So to my read, we have a lawyer who is citing actual text from the
>> license, we will have public a statement by the authors of the GPL
>> license itself, and meanwhile you have cited a second hand statement by
>> an unnamed lawyer concerning a matter unrelated to the GPL.
> 
> Sam, I feel you are being combative here and I don't understand why. I would just like to understand the situation. Assuming we trust Ian enough to believe he did not invent the legal advice, using pejorative language like "a second hand statement by an unnamed lawyer" to encourage people to dismiss the concerns seems wholly unhelpful.
> 
> There is clearly confusion in the group (some of it mine) and apparently exist conflicting interpretations, as far as I can tell even amongst lawyers, of the license text implies. I don't think asking for clarification on the specific issue at hand is unreasonable.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 18:09:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:26 GMT