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

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

From: WBS Mailer on behalf of arun@mozilla.com <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 21:45:02 +0000
To: arun@mozilla.com,www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <wbs-de5145ead15a6a635926bcef9fea4142@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 Arun Ranganathan.



---------------------------------
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: 
We believes that nothing but the right to fork, expressed in such a clear
way that anyone reading the license agrees that the license does actually
give the right to fork, will do. In other words, none of the W3C PSIG
options 1 through 3 are OK, because they don't offer this right.

The right to fork is an important free software/open source value, and in
this case particularly it ensures that if the W3C once again becomes a bad
venue for HTML development, as happened before (leading to the creation of
the WHATWG), work doesn't need to be started again from scratch.  There can
thus be a continuity of thought in successor specifications, should such
successor specifications to HTML5 need to be developed outside of W3C's
aegis.

The relevant "official Mozilla" public statements on the topic are:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0021.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0263.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0696.html

Both CC0 and MIT would achieve the forkability goal and, thus, align 
with our values. CC0 was proposed first, but it's less familiar to 
people, so MIT was proposed afterwards so that forkability doesn't get
rejected just because some people are suspicious of CC0. See: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0689.html . 





---------------------------------
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: 
We believes that nothing but the right to fork, expressed in such a clear
way that anyone reading the license agrees that the license does actually
give the right to fork, will do. In other words, none of the W3C PSIG
options 1 through 3 are OK, because they don't offer this right.

The right to fork is an important free software/open source value, and in
this case particularly it ensures that if the W3C once again becomes a bad
venue for HTML development, as happened before (leading to the creation of
the WHATWG), work doesn't need to be started again from scratch.  There can
thus be a continuity of thought in successor specifications, should such
successor specifications to HTML5 need to be developed outside of W3C's
aegis.

The relevant "official Mozilla" public statements on the topic are:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0021.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0263.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0696.html

Both CC0 and MIT would achieve the forkability goal and, thus, align 
with our values. CC0 was proposed first, but it's less familiar to 
people, so MIT was proposed afterwards so that forkability doesn't get
rejected just because some people are suspicious of CC0. See: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0689.html . 




---------------------------------
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: 
We believes that nothing but the right to fork, expressed in such a clear
way that anyone reading the license agrees that the license does actually
give the right to fork, will do. In other words, none of the W3C PSIG
options 1 through 3 are OK, because they don't offer this right.

The right to fork is an important free software/open source value, and in
this case particularly it ensures that if the W3C once again becomes a bad
venue for HTML development, as happened before (leading to the creation of
the WHATWG), work doesn't need to be started again from scratch.  There can
thus be a continuity of thought in successor specifications, should such
successor specifications to HTML5 need to be developed outside of W3C's
aegis.

The relevant "official Mozilla" public statements on the topic are:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0021.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0263.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0696.html

Both CC0 and MIT would achieve the forkability goal and, thus, align 
with our values. CC0 was proposed first, but it's less familiar to 
people, so MIT was proposed afterwards so that forkability doesn't get
rejected just because some people are suspicious of CC0. See: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0689.html . 




---------------------------------
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: 
We believes that nothing but the right to fork, expressed in such a clear
way that anyone reading the license agrees that the license does actually
give the right to fork, will do. In other words, none of the W3C PSIG
options 1 through 3 are OK, because they don't offer this right.

The right to fork is an important free software/open source value, and in
this case particularly it ensures that if the W3C once again becomes a bad
venue for HTML development, as happened before (leading to the creation of
the WHATWG), work doesn't need to be started again from scratch.  There can
thus be a continuity of thought in successor specifications, should such
successor specifications to HTML5 need to be developed outside of W3C's
aegis.

The relevant "official Mozilla" public statements on the topic are:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0021.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0263.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0696.html

Both CC0 and MIT would achieve the forkability goal and, thus, align 
with our values. CC0 was proposed first, but it's less familiar to 
people, so MIT was proposed afterwards so that forkability doesn't get
rejected just because some people are suspicious of CC0. See: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0689.html . 




---------------------------------
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.



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

Rationale: 
We believes that nothing but the right to fork, expressed in such a clear
way that anyone reading the license agrees that the license does actually
give the right to fork, will do. In other words, none of the W3C PSIG
options 1 through 3 are OK, because they don't offer this right.

The right to fork is an important free software/open source value, and in
this case particularly it ensures that if the W3C once again becomes a bad
venue for HTML development, as happened before (leading to the creation of
the WHATWG), work doesn't need to be started again from scratch.  There can
thus be a continuity of thought in successor specifications, should such
successor specifications to HTML5 need to be developed outside of W3C's
aegis.

The relevant "official Mozilla" public statements on the topic are:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0021.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0263.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0696.html

Both CC0 and MIT would achieve the forkability goal and, thus, align 
with our values. CC0 was proposed first, but it's less familiar to 
people, so MIT was proposed afterwards so that forkability doesn't get
rejected just because some people are suspicious of CC0. See: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0689.html . 


These answers were last modified on 5 May 2011 at 21:43:01 U.T.C.
by Arun Ranganathan

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 Thursday, 5 May 2011 21:45:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:36 GMT