apology for poor choice of words in HTML license discussion in #html-wg

Henri,

I'm sorry I said "you have been warned" when we discussed
the HTML spec license a few days ago...

http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20071024#l-430
<hsivonen> ChrisWilson: fwiw, when I copied bits of the spec to my code
comments, I used the WHATWG copy of the spec in order to avoid any W3C
document license issues.
* DanC tunes back in...
<DanC> hsivonen, on Rigo's behalf, I should note that you don't
necessarily avoid W3C license issues by doing that; HTML 5 is, arguably,
a derivative work of HTML 4, which is copyright W3C.
* aroben__ has quit (Ping timeout)
<hsivonen> DanC: I copied the tokenization section. IANAL, but I don't
buy the notion that was a derivative work of HTML 4 in the copyright
sense
<DanC> well, you've been warned.
<DanC> Rigo and Danny, who are laywers, convinced me.

That was a poor choice of words.

I should have said something like "well, I'm not sure either way."

I went on to say...

<DanC> hmm... I wonder if that's new information that motivates
re-considering the 9 May decision. ugh.

I'm not inclined to re-open the 9 May decision to start review
of the HTML 5 draft, but now that I put the question on
releasing the HTML 5 draft as a W3C WD, the answer from the W3C team
should include any concerns we have about the copyright.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/