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

Re: Document licenses...

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:38:56 +0200
To: "Karl Dubost" <karld@opera.com>
Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.wcywe6xcwxe0ny@widsith.eng.oslo.osa>
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:38:48 +0200, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote:

>
> Le 18 avr. 2012 à 09:47, Charles McCathieNevile a écrit :
>> including the spec in documentation, or tutorials, which is formally  
>> not allowed by the current license.
>
> I have translated for a lot of time specifications in French and it has  
> never been an issue.

Right.

> Then there is this bit which includes software
>
> "When space permits, inclusion of the full text of this NOTICE should be  
> provided. We request that authorship attribution be provided in any  
> software, documents, or other items or products that you create pursuant  
> to the implementation of the contents of this document, or any portion  
> thereof."

Which is normal...

> I think the part which gives butterflies to people is this:
>
> "No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents is  
> granted pursuant to this license. However, if additional requirements  
> (documented in the Copyright FAQ) are satisfied, the right to create  
> modifications or derivatives is sometimes granted by the W3C to  
> individuals complying with those requirements."

Exactly.

> Then again, in the Copyright FAQ, there is:
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#annotate
>
> "Annotations of the second type (including the reorganization and  
> excerption of copyrighted material) are derivative works. In some cases  
> W3C grants permission to create derivative works of this sort."
>
> I guess this is the part which needs to be modified to be closer from  
> the practical reality.

Right. The licenses of stuff is somewhat arcane in terms of where it fits  
in process and agreements. It also needs someone to look through the  
agreements and licenses and make sure that W3C can modify its terms (I  
believe it can, but crossing "I"s and dotting "t"s is a good practice when  
poking legal stuff).

The idea would be to reduce the requirement to ask W3C and get explicit  
permission. It may be that in practice, people can ask and get a reply  
though - in which case we should simply explain that more.

cheers


-- 
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 15:39:30 UTC

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