W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Apologies

From: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 09:55:43 -0400
Message-ID: <51E550DF.2040608@w3.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 07/15/2013 01:43 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I didn't realize I said to Robin that CC-BY was okay. I should have
> checked with a lawyer or at least the CC FAQ before saying anything of
> the sort. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby makes it
> pretty clear why it's not acceptable to me. My apologies for making it
> appear otherwise.

Hi Anne,

The GNU license list says only that the two licenses are not compatible,
meaning one can't simply re-license CC-BY material under GPL. It doesn't
say that both aren't usable in the same manner; I think they are.

I understand the GPL incompatibility to be that CC-BY does not permit
sub-licensing. However, W3C in its Process and document license commits
to making technical reports available free of charge to the general
public under its document license in perpetuity. [1] Therefore, every
would-be user of the code gets a license directly from W3C, and does not
need a sub-license.

Does this help?

--Wendy

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#dissemination


> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> 
> --
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
http://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 13:55:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:21 UTC