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

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:34 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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<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<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<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
>
>
Have you read Adam Barth's contributions to this discussion?  He has
summarized the point well, I think.  There is a difference between what the
license legally obligates one to do and what professionals working in good
faith towards similar goals do.

- Kyle