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

Re: Apologies

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:38:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CADnb78gF4HK1kHsrDdS8jz=YuxWj_6txqTN0EBvy7sw0Kw502Q@mail.gmail.com>
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

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