W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Policy for licensing Java interface files

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:31:36 -0500
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <1231947096.6540.6.camel@localhost>

On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 15:21 +1100, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> -public-webapps
> +www-archive
> Hi Phillipe.
> Philippe Le Hegaret:
> > I was asked to help understanding what the DOM Working Group did on the
> > topic of bindings license.
> Do you know if the W3C as a whole has a policy for the license to use
> for these Java interface files?

I don't believe so. The licensing terms for the DOM bindings were
drafted with the help of Joseph Reagle and the DOM Working Group, but we
never discussed applying those terms across other Groups. Note that the
changes applied in the DOM specification to the W3C software license
only affect the Java and IDL bindings. The ECMAScript bindings are under
the unaltered W3C software license.

>  I imagine it would make sense to be
> consistent about the licensing terms used.  I notice that the SVG 1.1
> Java interface ZIP file did not include a COPYRIGHT.html file like the
> DOM Core one does, so it seems that the SVG interfaces are licensed
> under the unaltered W3C Software License.
> The SVG WG are planning on, some time within the next month or two,
> releasing a second edition of SVG 1.1 that has had the errata applied,
> some of which include changes to the IDL and hence the Java interfaces.
> So if a change in the license used were needed, it is a convenient time
> for us to do so.

I does make sense to get consistent across the bindings. Did the SVG WG
think about the issue at all?

This issue looks to me a good agenda item for the HyperText CG btw,
since it affects several Groups. I'm certainly willing to bring it

Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 15:31:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:28 UTC