- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:27:49 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, 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>
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 22.06.2010 01:40, L. David Baron wrote: >> >> ... >> 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 >> ... > > Are you saying that all text *is* originating on the WHATWG side? I'll let Hixie speak to this. > Also, is it the actual text that counts, or the technical input it was based on? I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice: What is copyrighted is the actual text and not the technical requirements. The copyright does not prevent anyone from writing a different text which has the same technical requirements. If you want something that protects the technical requirements you need a patent. The copyright also does not prevent anyone from creating a different piece of text, with similar or wildly different technical requirements, and calling it "HTML". If you want something that protects the name "HTML" you need a trademark. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 07:28:42 UTC