W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Method overloading in IDL

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:28:35 -0700
Cc: Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>, public-webapi@w3.org
Message-Id: <E86E803C-3090-43DE-8EFE-F1973AC83984@apple.com>
To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>


On May 22, 2007, at 4:38 AM, Dave Raggett wrote:

> On Mon, 21 May 2007, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>> And the standard W3C license for IDL files would likely make it  
>> impossible to start with them. If we wanted to publish IDL that  
>> implementors could use, we'd have to change the license.
>
> Could you please expand on why such changes are needed?

The W3C's IDL license would not be usable for code that is part of  
Mozilla or WebKit because it is incompatible with the LGPL (WebKit's  
license and part of the Mozilla triple license).

Specifically, the following clauses:

"Permission to copy, modify, and distribute this software and its  
documentation, with or without modification, for any purpose and  
without fee or royalty is hereby granted, provided that you include  
the following on ALL copies of the software and documentation or  
portions thereof, including modifications: ... 	Any pre-existing  
intellectual property disclaimers, notices, or terms and conditions.  
If none exist, the W3CŪ Short Software Notice should be included  
(hypertext is preferred, text is permitted) within the body of any  
redistributed or derivative code. ... Notice of any changes or  
modifications to the files, including the date changes were made. (We  
recommend you provide URIs to the location from which the code is  
derived.)"

"Consequently, modified versions of the DOM bindings must document  
that they do not conform to the W3C standard; in the case of the IDL  
definitions, the pragma prefix can no longer be 'w3c.org'; in the case  
of the Java language binding, the package names can no longer be in  
the 'org.w3c' package."

Conflicts with clause 10 of the LGPL, which does not allow imposing  
any additional restrictions beyond the LGPL requirements:

"Each time you redistribute the Library (or any work based on the  
Library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the  
original licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the Library  
subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further  
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.  
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with  
this License."

I'm not sure how it would work with proprietary software but I think  
the requirement to describe all changes in all copies of documentation  
is quite onerous.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 18:29:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:57 GMT