W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2012

AW: Document licenses...

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:03:13 +0200
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <63930C77AA7F3A4C8C7D5D7F2BB2FFEA7D291B878D@QEO40072.de.t-online.corp>
Hi Chaals,
Can you elaborate?

I thought that basically citing a spec is perfectly admissible by the current license as long as it is a proper citation.
This seems to validated by [1], where is says a link or URL plus the copyright notice must be provided along with the text that is being used.

I am not sure what value the full inclusion of the spec has, when a reference is generally enough and also avoids document management issues.

-- Kai

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:chaals@opera.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. April 2012 15:47
> An: public-w3process@w3.org
> Betreff: Document licenses...
> Hi,
> a while ago there was a discussion driven by the HTMLWG about W3C's
> copyright license. The request boiled down to "we want the right to
> fork
> W3C specs", and W3C decided that wouldn't happen.
> But along the way there was a lot of discussion about things like
> including the spec in documentation, or tutorials, which is formally
> not
> allowed by the current license. Opera's formal position is that we
> would
> like to loosen the existing license to allow such uses, even if forking
> remains explicitly prohibited. Are there others who think this would be
> an
> improvement that is worth the effort of achieving it?
> cheers
> Chaals
> --
> Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>      je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk
> http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:03:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:08 UTC