W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [css-color] Starting CSS Color 4

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:09:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCKKQ=EdDVyGgz+Q=EGZi-v3JCFgdiNCKKpbiM6Dz6QtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since the WG hasn't yet approved this as a work item, I've removed it
>> from the csswg repo, and moved it into my github repo:
>> <http://github.com/tabatkins/specs>.
>>
>> You can see it live at
>> <http://rawgithub.com/tabatkins/specs/master/css-color/Overview.html>.
>>
>> I'll do all of my pre-WG-approval spec work in this repo from now on.
>
> I wonder if you violate the copyright of the W3C. The document is a clear copy of an existing W3C document with modifications. The W3C DOCUMENT LICENSE [1] applies and says:
>
> ""
> The pre-existing copyright notice of the original author, or if it doesn't exist, a notice (hypertext is preferred, but a textual representation is permitted) of the form: "Copyright © [$date-of-document] World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics, Keio University). All Rights Reserved. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231"
> ""
>
> You replaced the copyright notice by the Open Web Foundation Agreement Version 1.0 license which seems just applicable for new specs without any previous copyright of the W3C.

Most of the text is new.  Some parts are leftover from the old spec.
I can either:

1. Rewrite the *entire* spec, even the parts that are already acceptable,
2. Delete the parts that are already acceptable, and define mine as an
awkward delta spec on top of Color 3,
3. Use the W3C copyright notice, despite the fact that I'm not
producing this under the W3C (yet),
4. Not do the spec at all, or
5. Ignore this because it's a non-issue.

I'm currently opting for #5.  I'm pretty sure I'm already covered by
Fair Use under US copyright law.  Even if I'm not, any problems will
go away entirely as soon as either this becomes a WG work item, or the
W3C stops being silly and adopts an open document license.

If someone wants to make an issue of it, they're allowed to, but I'll
go on record as saying that that would make them a jerk.

~TJ
Received on Sunday, 28 April 2013 19:10:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 28 April 2013 19:10:43 UTC