RE: ISSUE-27: rel-ownership - Chairs Solicit Proposals

What is the status of this requested change?

When will http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt be updated?

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 7:24 PM
To: Maciej Stachowiak
Cc: Jonas Sicking; Larry Masinter; julian.reschke@gmx.de; Henri Sivonen; Paul Cotton; public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: ISSUE-27: rel-ownership - Chairs Solicit Proposals

Never mind; it doesn't much matter at this point, as long as everyone is OK with MIT. (Henri?)

Unless I hear otherwise, I'll add a header to the machine-readable format.

Cheers,


On 23/01/2010, at 11:23 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> 
> On Jan 22, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> OK, so does that mean you can't distribute it with some exceptions? I'm not trying to be difficult here, just trying to understand the requirements.
> 
> I don't understand this question. Can you clarify?
> 
> - Maciej
> 
>> 
>> MIT seems fine to me (it's my personal license of choice); work for everybody else?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 23/01/2010, at 11:01 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 22, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Does that matter? GPL isn't an end unto itself. 
>>> 
>>> You are correct that GPL is not an end in itself. But WebKit and Gecko are respectively LGPL and tri-licensed LGPL/GPL/MPL. Making it possible for two of the most popular browser engines to use the registry seems like a valuable end. An MIT-style license (i.e. BSD without advertising clause) would be compatible with all free software licenses of interest.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Maciej
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 23/01/2010, at 10:55 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Note that any attribution requirements are incompatible with GPL.
>>>>> 
>>>>> / Jonas
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>>>>> As it stands, I think the easiest way to go about this is simply to put license terms at the top of the machine-readable registry; since IANA isn't involved in that, they don't need to be consulted if that's all we're changing.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What's an appropriate license statement? CC-3.0 US Attribution?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 23/01/2010, at 6:29 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It would be harmful to the community and the benefits of open standards
>>>>>>> to allow a proprietary organization to freely take the results of
>>>>>>> an open standards process, make changes to the standard to advantage
>>>>>>> their proprietary technology, and then publish the result as if it
>>>>>>> were the authoritative version of the open standard, in a way that
>>>>>>> would confuse users and developers into using the proprietary version
>>>>>>> when they were expecting the public one. It would allow and encourage
>>>>>>> "embrace and pollute". Whether the standards organization itself
>>>>>>> is in a position to pursue remedies is not the issue -- it's the
>>>>>>> question of whether this practice is condoned by the community.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "Free Software" is a great when technologies and software can
>>>>>>> compete on their technical merit and end-user benefit. But
>>>>>>> IANA allowing someone to publish a version of the actual registered
>>>>>>> values, but to change the meanings (oh, say, define "ISO-8859-1"
>>>>>>> to mean "actually Windows 1252") would be harmful.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So I think it is reasonable to disallow downstream recipients
>>>>>>> to make arbitrary changes to registries or registered values.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Perhaps the restrictions go too far in terms of IANA registries,
>>>>>>> and should allow Henri to publish the "Henri-registry-set"
>>>>>>> which is derived from the IANA registry but includes Henri's
>>>>>>> favorite additional values, or which allows downstream users
>>>>>>> to do what they want with it (as long as they don't confuse
>>>>>>> anyone into think it is the IANA registry) that would be fine,
>>>>>>> but I think *some* restrictions are appropriate and reasonable.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> http://larry.masinter.net
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 4:02 AM
>>>>>>> To: Henri Sivonen
>>>>>>> Cc: Mark Nottingham; Paul Cotton; Maciej Stachowiak; public-html@w3.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: ISSUE-27: rel-ownership - Chairs Solicit Proposals
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jan 22, 2010, at 12:35, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Last I checked, the general IANA policy was that verbatim distribution of the registry files (with attribution) was permitted, but making changes or permitting downstream recipients to make changes (even if saying that the files have been changed) wasn't permitted. Thus, the IANA registry licensing (as it has been communicated to me by IANA) isn't Free in the Free Software sense.
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Pointer?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> No pointer. Just private communication from the IANA.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It would be awesome if they publicly contradicted what I said and made me look foolish by posting a Free as in Free Software policy. :-)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Maybe you should post the question to ietf-discuss, so it's on public
>>>>>>> record over there.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best regards, Julian
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>> 
> 


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 19:32:14 UTC