- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:38:27 -0700
- To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
- Cc: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote: > 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? I don't see how the W3C Process has any bearing on what the license implicates. And the document license is not applicable if CC-BY is used. Also, what Sam Ruby said. Adding Tantek to this thread in case he has something to add. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2013 00:38:54 UTC