Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec

On 01/09/2014 04:12, Marcos Caceres wrote:

> No. You, and possibly others, are misunderstanding why those specs have C0. It's for at least two, and possibly more, really good reasons:
> 
> 1. So anyone and everyone around the world can copy/paste spec text into blog posts, source code, books, etc. without asking for permission, needing citation, and without fear of legal action. This is extremely good for society for obvious reasons. 
> 
> 2. If the Editor goes rogue or there is a loss of confidence in the WHATWG by the "Web Community", the spec can be forked without needing to start from scratch. This is a worst case scenario: it's a safety to avoid the XHTML 2.0 scenario, which led to the establishment of the WHATWG in the first place. So, it's basically a way to protect the Web Community from bad decision making. A fork is then open to compete on its own merit.
> 
> The WHATWG has issues, sure - all standards orgs. But we are not at 2 - hence the W3C has no business forking the specs. 
> 
> Hope that makes sense! 

(TL;DR: intent and copyright/licensing terms diverge and it seems to
 me WHATWG asks W3C to stop something that terms explicitely allow.)

Wow, no, it does not. My problem is that it makes sense _only_ when
it's explained that way, after a request for explanation. You said
"WHY those specs have C0". I could not care less about "why" and no
lawyer will _ever_ care. What I want to know is "how", period.

It is impossible to understand that position from the terms
of the document itself. In particular, the mention of "all copyright
and related or neighboring rights" waived and of Public Domain.

Even if it's not the intent, the copyright and licensing terms seem to
allow anyone, anywhere, for any reason, without permission, to fork
the specs ("create derivative works" in licensing jargon). The terms of
OWFa 1.0 seem to be very clear on that point, I think. But again, I
could be wrong and will stand corrected if I am.

So without entering the current fight, I would like something to be
clarified immediately: are the WHATWG specs under OWFa 1.0, yes or no?
The specs themselves say they are.

If yes, I think _anyone_ can fork the spec, w/o permission, and that's
one of the main side effects of OWFa.
If no, you can't get the butter and the money for the butter at the
same time and you should get licensing terms that match more accurately
your explanations above and show the restrictions you want. They will
show less openness, something weird for WHATWG, IMHO.

</Daniel>

Received on Monday, 1 September 2014 06:59:19 UTC