- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 05:21:17 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: >> My hope remains that we settle on MIT. If the W3C and WHATWG can't come >> to an agreement on a license, then we will need to revisit this -- but >> then again, we will need to revisit a lot of assumptions, so I would >> recommend that we cross that bridge when we get to it. > > I assume you mean "If the W3C and the HTMLWG participants can't come to an > agreement...", not "W3C and WHATWG"; I'm unaware of any W3C/WHATWG > communication on the subject. As far as I'm aware, it's only an internal > HTMLWG issue regarding the licensing of the HTMLWG deliverables. The action is clearly on the HTMLWG side at this point in time (specifically, ACTION-29). Should the W3C decide to permit this working group to settle on MIT, I would hope that this resolves the issue. - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 09:21:54 UTC