Re: [Licensing] Request to evaluate candidate HTML Document license (known as "Option 3")

On 4/4/11 4:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Nice selective deleting of context.  What I replied to was the
> two paragraphs you deleted:

OK, that was not clear to me.

>>> Our opinion is that Option 3 does not satisfy requirement A), because it contains field-of-use restrictions.
>>>
>>> Our opinion is that Option 3 does not satisfy requirement C), because the W3C Document License does not permit forking, and the additional permission statement restricts it to portions "in/accompanying software".
>
> That first opinion is wrong.  It does not appear to be written
> by a lawyer.

It was written by a lawyer.

> I find that odd, since Mitchell is a lawyer, and
> I am accustomed to having Mozilla's legal opinions presented
> by Mitchell.  That's why I asked if that "opinion" had been
> given to Mitchell for review.

I have no idea.  It was given to the legal team; Mitchell was presumably 
consulted if that was needed.

So I have no idea what you are accustomed to; what Gerv presented is 
what Mozilla legal told me and him.  This is the official Mozilla legal 
position at this time.

> As mentioned every time this comes up, the second opinion
> regarding requirement (C) has already been rejected by the
> W3C members and is not intended to be satisfied by the PSIG
> proposals.

That's fine; we're just saying that we don't consider the proposals 
acceptable as a result.

> Would that be Mozilla the Foundation, Mozilla the corporation,
> Mozilla the Firefox team, or Mozilla the two guys who happen to
> be responding to me?  I'd like to know before I ask Mozilla's
> directors to explain their thinking.

I believe this is Mozilla the Foundation speaking here (and therefore 
the opinion is binding on the other entities you mention).

-Boris

Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 23:58:20 UTC