W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2011

[wbs] response to 'HTML5 license: Which license should be used for the W3C HTML5 specifications? - Preference Poll'

From: WBS Mailer on behalf of erights@google.com <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:48:01 +0000
To: erights@google.com,www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <wbs-847b16aa0643f284ed5ad6d206d7cef3@cgi.w3.org>

The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'HTML5 license:
Which license should be used for the W3C HTML5 specifications? - Preference
Poll' (HTML Working Group) for Mark Miller.



---------------------------------
W3C License Option 1 
----
We have W3C License Option 1 for the W3C HTML5 specifications.  Please
provide your preference with respect to this license by choosing ONE of the
options below.
If you have strong objections to adopting this License Option, please
state your objections below.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite
someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately
addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.



 * ( ) This is my preferred license.
 * ( ) I can live with this license.
 * (x) I cannot live with this license.

Rationale: 
"the publication of derivative works of this document for use as a
technical specification is expressly prohibited" is too restrictive. I have
actively argues that Ecma documentation licenses should have no such
restrictions, and I feel as strongly about w3c licenses.




---------------------------------
W3C License Option 2
----
We have W3C License Option 2 for the W3C HTML5 specifications.  Please
provide your preference with respect to this license by choosing ONE of the
options below.

If you have strong objections to adopting this License Option, please
state your objections below.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite
someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately
addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.



 * ( ) This is my preferred license.
 * ( ) I can live with this license.
 * (x) I cannot live with this license.

Rationale: 
"It is not, however, intended to facilitate the publication of derivative
works as a technical specification.". Again, this is too restrictive, and I
have actively fought such restrictions within Ecma. The same considerations
apply to w3c. Whether or not forking is good, the right to fork is.




---------------------------------
W3C License Option 3
----
We have W3C License Option 3 for the W3C HTML5 specifications.  Please
provide your preference with respect to this license by choosing ONE of the
options below.

If you have strong objections to adopting this License Option, please
state your objections below.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite
someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately
addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.


 * ( ) This is my preferred license.
 * ( ) I can live with this license.
 * (x) I cannot live with this license.

Rationale: 
While a huge improvement, " It is still W3C policy to discourage
unauthorized forks of its specifications, and nobody should read Option 3
as including any such authorization." still indicated too restrictive a
stance.




---------------------------------
Mozilla proposed CC0 license 
----
Although W3C staff are pursuing a license that does not permit forking, we
are also interested in hearing from HTML Working Group participants about
their opinion of the CC0 license as proposed by Mozilla for the W3C HTML5
specifications.  Please provide your preference with respect to this
license by choosing ONE of the options below.

If you have strong objections to adopting this License Option, please
state your objections below.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite
someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately
addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.



 * (x) This is my preferred license.
 * ( ) I can live with this license.
 * ( ) I cannot live with this license.

Rationale: 
Ideally non-restrictive.




---------------------------------
Mozilla proposed MIT license 
----
Although W3C staff are pursuing a license that does not permit forking, we
are also interested in hearing from HTML Working Group participants about
their opinion of the MIT license as proposed by Mozilla for the W3C HTML5
specifications.  Please provide your preference with respect to this
license by choosing ONE of the options below.

If you have strong objections to adopting this License Option, please
state your objections below.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite
someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately
addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.



 * ( ) This is my preferred license.
 * (x) I can live with this license.
 * ( ) I cannot live with this license.

Rationale: 
Adequately non-restrictive


These answers were last modified on 29 April 2011 at 13:46:18 U.T.C.
by Mark Miller

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/html5-license-poll-v3/ until
2011-05-05.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 13:48:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:35 GMT