W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Draft W3C Excerpt License (Re: WG Decision - spec license use cases)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:40:42 -0500
Message-ID: <49B054EA.1060200@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org, site-policy@w3.org
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Dailey, David P. wrote:
>>> I am not sure if Philippe's intention was to have this discussion 
>>> here at public-html as well
>> I'm not certain what plh's intentions were, but given that we were 
>> asked to provide use cases as a group, I would like to gather together 
>> a response as a group.  I am planning on attending the AC meeting 
>> later this month, and would like to be able to represent the working 
>> group's position on this matter.
>> From what I gather so far, this draft Excerpt License is not viewed as 
>> sufficient.  In particular:
>> 1) Several (not just Ian's, but others as well) documents that are 
>> being developed with the intent of becoming the basis of a W3C 
>> Recommendation or Note will continue to be developed outside of the W3C.
>> 2) Many in this working group will continue to point people who may be 
>> considering producing a derived work at the MIT-licensed version of 
>> such documents hosted outside of the W3C.
>> Let me know if this impression is inaccurate.
> I believe there were at least two additional issues raised:
> 3) The license does not appear to be compatible with the LGPL or GPL, 
> thus preventing the use of spec excerpts (possibly even including IDL, 
> unless that is licensed otherwise) in Gecko, WebKit, or other open 
> source browser engines using these or similar licenses.
> 4) The license is novel and does not match the terms of other existing 
> licenses, thus creating unwelcome open source license proliferation.

 From my perspective, that's not 3) and 4) but 1) and 2) of a different
list.  Complete that second list, and you have the original use cases.

Trust me, I fully understand and appreciate why you want [L]GPL
compatibility, but I can equally forcefully argue the other side: you
are involved in the production of software that implements HTML 4.01
today, right?  Anything better than that is only a nice to have, right?
  Please realize that we are fundamentally challenging something that is
core to what the W3C is and how it operates...

I don't want to go there.  This process where we produce use cases, hear
nothing for weeks, and then get a response that intentionally ignores
some use cases and unintentionally doesn't satisfy others is
fundamentally broken.

I want a dialog.

Until we get that, my preference is that we simply reaffirm the original
use cases, indicate that we are in agreement that the draft we have seen
does not satisfy those use cases, and more carefully and succinctly
spell out the implications of these issue in terms that are relevant to
the W3C.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 22:41:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:44 UTC