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

Re: Option 3

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:20:27 +0100
Message-ID: <4D8A722B.5010909@lachy.id.au>
To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org, 'PSIG' <member-psig@w3.org>
On 2011-03-23 21:55, Lawrence Rosen 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.

In any case, intentional or not, the statement of yours that was quoted 
is false.

> I've made the point here before that "permission to do X" is not the
> legal equivalent of "restriction on doing ~X". Some things, such as fair
> use activities

I'm aware of fair use/fair dealing, and the fact that those copyright 
laws do not apply equally in every jurisdiction, and are thus best 
ignored for our purposes.

But even so, fair use would not permit anyone to create a derivative 
specification (i.e. fork, not just create a delta spec), and that is 
explicitly restricted by the Document Licence and is certainly not 
covered by the option-3 amendment.

As far as I can see, this would even be the case if they tried to do so 
by copying and pasting every line of the spec into the source of GPL'd 
software, and then from there into a new specification that is not 
considered to be "supporting materials accompanying software [or] 
documentation of software".  That is the field of use restriction, and 
it clearly violates GPLv2 clause 6, which states

   "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
    exercise of the rights granted herein"

That restriction also fails to comply with the DFSG guidline #6 covering 
discrimination against fields of endeavour.

> or using non-patented technology, for example

Patents are not relevant to this copyright discussion.

> you have the right to do without asking anyone's permission.  That's
> even more generous than the MIT license. :-)

It's not clear to me what you mean by "generous" in this context.  Since 
MIT grants permissions in addition to those permitted under fair use (in 
jurisdictions where applicable), MIT is certainly more permissive than 
fair use alone.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 22:21:03 GMT

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