- From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:29:07 +0000
- To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
> I believe we have that in the W3C Software License, a BSD variant that's already recognized as OSI Open Source and GPL-compatible. Is that appropriate for specs (as opposed to code) being incubated in GitHub/a Community Group? I think we want to keep this as simple as possible. -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wseltzer@w3.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:21 AM To: David Singer; public-w3process Subject: Re: What is Process Good For? licensing On 12/16/2014 02:13 PM, David Singer wrote: > >> On Dec 16, 2014, at 9:18 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> >> What's wrong with something like the BSD license? or asking Creative Commons to create a simple document license that is compatible with GPL (and other popular software licenses) and that requires things like preserving copyright notices and disclaimers? > > It would be good to have a simple ‘please attribute but otherwise do as you will” text (copyright) license in existence that does not have the problems of cc-by. ideally it already exists and we avoid license proliferation. I believe we have that in the W3C Software License, a BSD variant that's already recognized as OSI Open Source and GPL-compatible. http://opensource.org/licenses/W3C We're aiming to take a first step toward more liberal licensing with the proposal, currently before the AC, to offer Code Components under the Software License: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2014/doc-license.html --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office) Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://wendy.seltzer.org/ +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2014 19:29:41 UTC