W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Copyright of the IDL Definitions

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:38:25 -0400
Message-ID: <39C6B581.162B9C12@w3.org>
To: Tobias Peters <tpeters@uni-oldenburg.de>
CC: www-dom@w3.org
Tobias Peters wrote:
> Here is a question about the copyright issues involved when creating a DOM
> implementation.
> The copyright notice
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/copyright-notice.html forbids the
> creation of "modifications or derivatives". My perception is that the
> creation of a DOM implementation involves making a derivative work of the
> DOM API published in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/level-one-core.html or
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/idl-definitions.html . These files
> are published under the mentioned copyright notice, so how can any legal
> DOM (level 1) implementation exist?

This is not exactly true. "modifications or derivatives" is about the
document itself. So yes, according to the DOM Level 1 copyright, you had no
right to modify or create derivatives of the DOM Level 1 bindings. It
doesn't prevent you to use them, btw.

> Regarding DOM level 2, there is a distinction between the "document" and
> the "bindings", with the latter being published under a different license
> that permits modifications.

yes, we discovered that the DOM Level 1 document copyright statement is too
restrictive for the bindings (in others words, the copyright for the bindings
in DOM Level 1 was an error). So, following a comment from the Debian
community, we changed the copyright statement to match their requirements
of open source softwares.

> The copyright notice
> http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2/copyright-notice.html explicitly mentions
> the "IDL binding", while the table of contents speeks of "Java Language
> Binding" and "ECMA Script Language Binding", but "IDL Definitions" instead
> of IDL binding. Are these "IDL Definitions" really meant by the term "IDL
> binding", and if they are, could this be made more clear in the level 2
> document?

Good catch, this needs to be synchronized before the REC !

Thank you,
Received on Monday, 18 September 2000 20:41:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:07 UTC