- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 07:26:46 -0600
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 00:52 +0100, Lachlan Hunt wrote: [...] > I think it's better that we get the licencing issue sorted out sooner > rather than later. The issue is sorted, to my satisfaction. All the contributors have agreed to the MIT license, and the MIT license is sufficient for all the potential contributors, as far as I know. [...] > I would prefer to address this issue without the hassles of another > working group survey, if at all possible. But if such a formal decision > is required (I hope not), then I think we should get it over and done > with. My preference, however, would be to just make some sort of formal > announcement on public-html-wg-announce and/or public-html-testsuite > that this decision has been made. Made by whom? It suffices, for my purposes, for the time being, that each person who contributes to the test suite decides that the MIT license is OK. If you want a WG decision, the WG has to participate somehow; noone can just announce that a WG decision has been made without asking a question and "allowing for remote, asynchronous participation using, for example, email and/or web-based survey techniques" -- http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#decisions It seems straightforward to do a WG decision when we have some pile of tests that is ready for the WG to approve; and the license will just be one of many small details that the WG approves at that point. > [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/tests/license.txt?rev=1.1 > [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php > [3] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/tests/license.txt?rev=1.2 > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 13:26:53 UTC