W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > November 2014

Re: WHATWG/W3C collaboration proposal

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:50:45 -0500
Message-ID: <54748935.1010704@intertwingly.net>
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 11/25/2014 08:14 AM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>
> On 11/23/14 12:41 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
>> If this is in violation of the Member Agreement, I would have
>> expected someone to make that point during the AC review of the
>> WebApps charter. IANAL so if this is a real current concern, we
>> should loop in Wendy, PSIG, and/or members own legal staff for
>> guidance.
>
> Any issues with the Member agreement are limited to usages of a spec in
> a way not permitted by the W3C Document License.  So there would be
> never any issues with W3C introducing a new license; only issues if
> people don't honor such a license - which seems to be the concerns that
> Anne has raised.
>
> Hence, it would not come up in the AC review of the WebApps charter.

My read of the W3C member agreement is that "... materials developed 
jointly ... Each joint owner shall be entitled to exercise all rights of 
ownership as provided by law, without, however, an obligation of 
accounting from one to the other."

It is quite common for an owner to publish their work to different 
audiences under different terms.  For example: 
http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem/

I'll check with W3 Legal to confirm my interpretation before pushing my 
work to any W3C repositories.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 13:51:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:13 UTC