- From: Eduardo Gutentag <Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:19:41 -0800
- To: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
- Cc: jonas@sicking.cc, ian@hixie.ch, plh@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, site-policy@w3.org
On 03/06/2009 03:25 PM, T.V Raman wrote: > Eduardo, > You clearly missed the smiley at the end of the assertion"you're > in MIT". > I may have. But I didn't miss the fact that you specifically suggested that W3C could reuse the MIT-style license ;-) > The primary purport of the message wasn't to say W3C should use > the MIT license, rather, it was to say we shouldn't be causing > license proliferation by creating yet another new license. Ah, I didn't read it like that, I thought you were criticizing W3C for wasting money. You did say "it's a source of expense that W3C could avoid in these hard times" > It is > critical for many of the Open Source projects building on W3C > Specs to have a license that is compatible with the underlying > codebase --- and I believe an exercise to create a license that > matches those needs will ultimately culminate in a license that > is as much the same as one of the existing Apache or BSD style licenses. > I am not a lawyer, so I'm not sure a license designed for source code licensing would be appropriate for the designated purpose of the inclusion of portions of specifications into source code documentation. Perhaps we should consult with a lawyer? ;-) -- Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM Technology Director | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 (internal x31442) Corporate Standards | Sun Microsystems Inc. W3C AC Rep / W3C AB / OASIS BoD
Received on Saturday, 7 March 2009 00:20:39 UTC