On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: ... > * Why are they both under a different license than the original one (and > different from eachoter)? > - "Editing" (the original) is the W3C Community Contributor License > Agreement as well as CC0 1.0 > - "historic-editing-apis" is under the W3C Document License > - "execCommand" is CC BY 3.0 > As you said, once we start working on these, we probably need to think > through the license, but the current state seems wrong. > I received some respec errors initially for the Bejnjamin's documents. So for these I removed the license info from the respec config. This applied the standard CC_BY license, which was the same license that previously had been specified in the respec arguemnts. The difference was that now the errors were gone. As for the other ones -- I am unsure. To make things more complicated, as mentioned earlier, one repository had files licensed as MIT, the other one CC0. MIT seems more restrictive than CC0, so it seems they should be relicensable as MIT, but I am not a lawyer, and for that reason I sent out an email asking for help on figuring out the licenses. -- Johannes Wilm Fidus Writer http://www.fiduswriter.org
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 15:13:20 UTC