Re: DOM, Promises, and licensing

On 7/12/2013 3:52 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 7/12/2013 2:16 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
>>     I think this is all misdirection from the core question:
>>
>>     Jeff: did you express that view to Anne?
>
>     I'm not sure I understand which view you are talking about.  I've
>     certainly expressed the view that the W3C Document License does
>     not permit forking.  Is that what you are asking?
>
>
> To quote Anne:
>
> "...per your understanding of the W3C Member Agreement I could not be 
> a Member of the W3C WebApps WG, push snapshots to TR/, while 
> simultaneously edit http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ This generalizes to 
> other documents I work
> on as I understand it."
>
> This would have several follow-ons if it's accurate:
>
>  1. Why do you believe that the WHATWG document is a fork in any way
>     from the W3C document?
>

DOM was started prior to my joining W3C, but I'm told that DOM was 
originally done at W3C.  Assuming that is true, then the WHAT WG 
document is likely a fork, although I have not personally examined the spec.

>  1. If it can be shown not to be, do you drop your objection (assuming
>     you do object)?
>

Well this is a complex question which is probably best left for advice 
from attorneys.  But let's accept your assumption that it can be shown 
not to be a fork.  As I understand it, even if the current version is 
not a fork, if a later version includes IP contributed by W3C Members 
then that later version might be a fork.

>  1. Do you accept that if drafts are published at the WHATWG first and
>     are then copied into W3C documents that this does not constitute
>     any sort of "forking" or creation of a derivative on the part of
>     the member doing this?
>

I don't think I agree; maybe I just don't understand.  If the WHATWG 
publishes a document and then it is copied into a W3C document that 
represents a fork of the WHATWG document.  Given the license used at 
WHATWG the forking is permitted, but it is still a fork.

> The point you make about the W3C license might not even be apropos 
> depending on your responses to the above.
>
>>     And is it not based on an /opinion/ of the policies in effect
>>     with regards to derivitive works in this area? Is it really
>>     necessary to ask the AC to change the Team's opinion on this?
>
>     Again, don't understand.  It is not an opinion that our current
>     license does not permit forking.
>
>
> It is the opinion of W3C lawyers /*if/how Anne's actions would 
> constitute forking* /which is under discussion.

Sure, but Anne's note seems to say that he doesn't work on anything that 
does not permit forking - which - for better or for worse - is not 
possible in W3C until we get the new HTML Charter.  W3C lawyers cannot 
give an opinion that a fork is not a fork.

>>     Anne: can you make the formal request per the rule there?
>>
>>     Jeff: assuming he does, can you please advise on a timeframe for
>>     getting a response?
>>
>>
>>     On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org
>>     <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
>>
>>         On 7/12/2013 2:02 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>
>>             On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org
>>             <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
>>
>>                 First, if Anne has a request, I would like to hear
>>                 his request.  I don't
>>                 want to hypothetically guess his request and respond
>>                 to all possible
>>                 interpretations.
>>
>>             Alex asked why DOM in W3C was not updated. I told him
>>             that per your
>>             understanding of the W3C Member Agreement I could not be
>>             a Member of
>>             the W3C WebApps WG, push snapshots to TR/, while
>>             simultaneously edit
>>             http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ This generalizes to other
>>             documents I work
>>             on as I understand it.
>>
>>             I cannot speak for WHATWG (no space), but I personally
>>             would not want
>>             to edit anything that cannot be forked.
>>
>>
>>         As we've discussed many times, at a personal level I respect
>>         your decision not to work on documents that cannot be forked,
>>         even though it disappoints me from a W3C point of view.
>>
>>         I've also said that over time I'm hopeful that we get to a
>>         point that we have an evolved consensus in this area.
>>
>>         First step - still not a done deal - is the revision of the
>>         HTML5 Charter and forking for extension specifications.
>>
>>
>>
>>             --
>>             http://annevankesteren.nl/
>>
>>
>>
>
>