Re: Licensing

On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 01:12 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:03:35 +0100, Alex Mogilevsky  
> <alexmog@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the pointer. I can see from F2F minutes that the issue was  
> > resolved but not exactly how. Is there a link to actual resolution or  
> > formal announcement of the change?
> 
> As far as I can see, no. Dan, do you have a more explicit reference than  
> the one mentioned below where it is announced that the HTML WG will use  
> the MIT license for its testsuite?

Let's see... no, I guess that's the most clear record:

"<fantasai> Anne wants a W3C lawyer to attend to discuss licensing

<fantasai> DanC says that MIT has been approved"
 -- http://www.w3.org/2007/11/09-html-wg-minutes.html

Is something more formal wanted or needed?

I got approval to contribute my own work under the MIT license,
and as far as I know, it's OK for the HTML WG as a whole
to use the MIT license.

As to an announcement on behalf of the HTML WG... the HTML WG
hasn't made any test suite licensing decisions. I think
the people interested in test suite development can work
for some time without any formal decision from the HTML WG.
If you think a formal decision is important, please let me know.


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@opera.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 3:14 PM
> >
> > During the HTML WG F2F I proposed a session on test licensing and
> > requested a W3C lawyer to attend. However, at that point DanC had already
> > talked with the W3C legal team apparently and my session was no longer
> > necessary as MIT was ok. See
> > http://www.w3.org/2007/11/09-html-wg-minutes.html for more details.
> 
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 22:34:36 UTC