W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: CfC: publish WD of XHR; deadline November 29

From: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 19:34:03 +0100
Message-ID: <50B2649B.10003@gmail.com>
To: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
CC: public-webapps@w3.org
Le 22/11/2012 18:16, Ms2ger a écrit :
> On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> TheXHR Editors  would  like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
>> Call for  Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
>> WD template) as the basis
>> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>.
>>
>> Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
>> WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of 
>> the WD.
>>
>> If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
>> to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
>>
>> Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
>> will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
>
> I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical 
> spec on whatwg.org.
I'm unfamiliar with the W3C process, so sorry if my question is stupid, 
but why would it be necessary? (I assume you're talking about 
http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/)

Quoting http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/
"Editor:
     Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>

CC0 To the extent possible under law, the editor has waived all 
copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. In addition, 
as of 22 November 2012, the editor has made this specification available 
under the Open Web Foundation Agreement Version 1.0, which is available 
at http://www.openwebfoundation.org/legal/the-owf-1-0-agreements/owfa-1-0. "

Quoting 
http://www.openwebfoundation.org/legal/the-owf-1-0-agreements/owfa-1-0 
(emphasis is mine)
"2.1.   Copyright Grant.  I grant to you a perpetual (for the duration 
of the applicable copyright), worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, 
royalty-free, copyright license, *without any obligation for accounting 
to me*, to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, 
publicly perform, sublicense, distribute, and implement the 
Specification to the full extent of my copyright interest in the 
Specification. "

This wording makes pretty clear that pointing to the whatwg spec isn't 
required or necessary or anything.


It would be pretty hypocritical to put some work under CC0/public 
domain/OWFAV1.0 and expect or even demand to be credited. Some licences 
(CC-BY as an example) require crediting the original author. I assume a 
purposeful choice has been made by Anne and the WHATWG to put the work 
under a licence that doesn't have such a requirement.
Choosing a licence applied to some work shows an intention of how one 
expects the work to be reused. The intention here is pretty clear and 
says "I don't care of being credited".
Choosing a licence is a serious choice with serious implications.

If the WHATWG expects credit, maybe it should consider re-licence its 
work (which would be easy given the current licence ;-) ) to a licence 
expressing more clearly this intent instead of expecting others to guess 
the intent and throwing accusations of plagiarism.

David
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2012 18:34:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:56 GMT