- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 03:28:19 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, public-html@w3.org
Maciej Stachowiak 2009-03-06 01.23: > > On Mar 5, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >>> I think that in practice, W3C specifications will remain >>> canonical and authoritative, not because of licensing, but >>> because the W3C is respected as an organization, and is >>> seen as the definitive source of Web standards. So long as >>> W3C remains a good steward, forks will not happen or at >>> least will not go anywhere. If it fails to be a good >>> steward, forks will happen no matter what the license says. >>> >> >> Indeed. I think it's W3Cs name, not its licenses, that makes >> people honor its specifications. > > Responding since this quoted bit was originally my comment. > > Perhaps the W3C's needs could be addressed via trademark rather > than copyright licensing. It seems fair to say no one should be > able to claim a derivative work is W3C HTML5, or to use the > W3C's logo, or to otherwise misrepresent the nature of the > work. I believe LGPL and GPL are compatible with names or logos > being trademarked, and with a requirement that differences to > the original must be clearly indicated; indeed they have such a > requirement themselves. So, the issue is about using the spec without displaying anything that makes the user trust that this is the official standard? What about link relations so one can easily point to the authorative version? Perhaps not only CreativeCommmons but even HTML 5 itself needs CURIE support etc? -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 6 March 2009 02:29:04 UTC