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

RE: Option 3

From: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:36:05 -0700
To: <public-html@w3.org>
Cc: "'PSIG'" <member-psig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <14e001cbe9a2$51269d50$f373d7f0$@com>
> The fact that W3C claims a copyright on the document does add a whole
> lot of explicit restrictions though, right? Specifically, it adds
> basically limits all forms of copying except the ones afforded by fair
> use.

Since when is the presence of a copyright notice the only proof needed that
some aspects of a work are actually copyrightable or copyrighted? If that
were true, I'd copyright Shakespeare's plays and all of Linux in the blink
of an eye.

Enough from me!  Ask your own lawyer!  She charges less per hour for free
advice than I do. And her advice is probably more reliable for your
particular use case.

/Larry



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:06 PM
> To: Lawrence Rosen
> Cc: public-html@w3.org; PSIG
> Subject: Re: Option 3
> 
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
> wrote:
> >> >  From the original post[1] "This Option 3 license, however,
> >> > contains no express restrictions on downstream uses".
> >>
> >> Please stop quoting blatant lies.  It absolutely does contain
> >> restrictions.  The W3C Document Licence states:
> >>
> >>    "No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents
> is
> >>     granted pursuant to this license."
> >>
> >> That imposes the restrictions.  Option 3 only carves out 3
> exceptions
> >> for software, supporting materials accompanying software, and
> >> documentation of software.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps it is appropriate here to ask that we not use phrases like
> "blatant lies" without greater care.
> 
> I agree that Lachlan's tone here is not called for.
> 
> > I've made the point here before that "permission to do X" is not the
> legal equivalent of "restriction on doing ~X".
> 
> The fact that W3C claims a copyright on the document does add a whole
> lot of explicit restrictions though, right? Specifically, it adds
> basically limits all forms of copying except the ones afforded by fair
> use.
> 
> Since fair use and the license only removes some of these explicit
> restrictions, that still leaves a whole lot of restrictions though?
> Some of these restrictions does not appear to me to be compatible with
> GPL.
> 
> / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 21:36:33 UTC

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