- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:25:46 +0200
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Le 22/06/10 01:40, L. David Baron a écrit : > While I think it's true that the HTML Working Group within the W3C > has tried to collaborate with WHATWG, I'm not so sure that it's true > of the W3C as a whole. > > Currently the W3C and the WHATWG have very different document > licensing policies. The WHATWG document license allows anybody to > create a derivative specification; the W3C's does not. While the > HTML working group requested a change to the license: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0388.html , > the W3C has not yet made such a change. I think many members of the > WHATWG community feel strongly about this issue; I certainly do. I don't. This is precisely the case where full openess is wanted in the name of openess itself and not really because it helps the market. I do believe the licensing terms of the WHATWG have a few bad sides that do not counter-balance the loss of the status quo. > The current licensing situation means that the only practical way > the WHATWG and W3C can work together on the same specification is if > all of the text originates on the WHATWG side. That seems like an > odd definition of collaboration, and I think it's closely tied to a > number of the other issues causing conflict in this group. You mean messages of the kind "we don't care about your slow and useless W3C process, we keep moving" ? In short: "the only way to make us happy is to do like we do". Nice. </Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 05:26:19 UTC