W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Language Binding License

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:57:14 -0500
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: spec-prod@w3.org, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1266433034.5449.735.camel@chacal>
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 13:51 -0500, Doug Schepers wrote:
> Hi, Robin-
> 
> Those are questions for PLH, now CCed.
> 
> Robin Berjon wrote (on 2/17/10 8:55 AM):
> > On Feb 17, 2010, at 04:07 , Doug Schepers wrote:
> >> Philippe Le Hégaret has just updated the W3C Guide to suggest
> >> licensing wording for specifications that include APIs or
> >> bindings:
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/Guide/binding-license.html
> >>
> >> This may be useful for editors who use include language bindings
> >> directly in the body of specifications.  For convenience, you may
> >> still wish to provide the raw bindings in a separate file, but it
> >> makes sense to have the bindings in the document be under the same
> >> reusable license (rather than the more restrictive document
> >> license).
> >
> > The solution that the DOM uses relies on placing specific text in an
> > external document. If we were to use similar text inside a
> > single-page specification are there guidelines as to where we ought
> > to place it? SotD? Alongside the © notice?

Robin,

the license is inside the W3C Recommendation itself. See 
 http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/copyright-notice.html

for an example.

In DOM specs, we copied the licenses. It may be possible to avoid doing
so and just having the open paragraph.

I'll update my document to link to the example,

Philippe
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 18:57:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:16 GMT