W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Draft HTML5 licensing survey

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:25:54 -0700
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Message-id: <998CA75F-0E1C-4549-8688-456D47B7C3D8@apple.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>

On Apr 22, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> At the Weekly WG meeting on Thu Apr 21 the Chairs were asked what type of
>> survey they would be carrying out on this topic.  The Chairs have drafted a
>> survey on the three licensing options which is available for review at [2].
>> Please provide any comments on the structure and instructions on this draft
>> licensing survey in response to this message.  The Chairs will evaluate this
>> input before posting the final survey.
> It was clear from previous discussion that Google, Mozilla, and a
> number of individuals were strongly opposed to all three proposed
> licenses, and that many Working Group members would prefer a
> well-established permissive license.  Could a fourth option be added,
> something like "some permissive license such as MIT or CC0 that
> permits forking"?  I realize that this option has been rejected
> already by the Advisory Committee, but if the purpose of this survey
> is to gauge the opinion of the HTMLWG, it makes sense to allow those
> who support a fourth option to clearly say so.  That way,
> decision-makers in other parts of the W3C can accurately gauge how
> strong that support is, which might affect their position or at least
> their understanding of the situation.
> Of course, some indication should be made in the survey that W3C
> Management has explicitly rejected the fourth option and is not
> considering it.  But since this survey (unlike most HTMLWG surveys)
> does allow for supporting an option, not just opposing, it would be
> valuable to take the opportunity to gauge support for the fourth
> option now that we all know it's been rejected -- which might differ
> from support before it was rejected.

MIT and CC0 are different options. Do you feel that both should be included?

Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 22:26:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:36 UTC