Re: CC license on figures in specs?

On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 13:55 -0800, fantasai wrote:
> On 12/15/2011 08:35 AM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > On 15 Dec 2011, at 10:27 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> >
> >> Anybody ever put e.g. a CC 3.0 Sharealike with citation license on one
> >> or more figures in a W3C Rec.?  Any reason not to?
> >
> > Hi Henry,
> >
> > I believe that would conflict with the Document License.
> 
> Indeed. Which brings up an issue: we might want to make an update to the
> Document License saying that examples and figures are in the public domain.
> Example code, especially. The point is to allow them as a starting point
> for reuse. :)

I would note that this problem is ancient and the DOM Working Group
resolved it as follows in the DOM specifications:
 http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Core/copyright-notice.html

In others words, we were explicit to indicate the DOM bindings were not
under the Document License but the software license instead.

Philippe

Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 15:44:46 UTC