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

RE: Draft HTML5 licensing survey

From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:29:50 -0400
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
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: <C64F09DF6833C44782B27844765560BC177F37A7E1@MSFEXCH01.srunet.sruad.edu>
In Sam's note, he wrote:

>We would further encourage all input to be considered, including the 
>following responses, though such input may not represent consensus:
>On the last two, I'm just being careful; I don't see any reason not to 
>believe that they also represent consensus, but the real goal here is to 
>get the legal review started, having dealt with lawyers in the past, I'm 
>confident that once it begins to digest this data these use cases will 
>represent the start of the discussion and not the end.

I see language that looks like it probably represents the concern of #322, but not of #324. As it sits, I'm not sure the use cases considered even include the case of the author of a book (not for sale) excerpting from the spec, though one would presume that a court, seeing that books for sale were considered, would generally conclude that books not for sale were probably covered as well. As some have pointed out, though, relying on assumptions about how courts might act in the presence of unconsidered cases might become problematic.

Perhaps there has been discussion of this which I missed, and perhaps I am missing language in the current enumeration which specifically covers the four use cases of #324, and if so, sorry for the question.


From: Maciej Stachowiak [mjs@apple.com]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 10:10 PM
To: Dailey, David P.
Cc: Paul Cotton; public-html@w3.org; Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)
Subject: Re: Draft HTML5 licensing survey

On Apr 22, 2011, at 7:04 PM, Dailey, David P. wrote:

> In Sam's Ruby's note [1] of February 2009, there were some use cases included that managed to drop out of the list being offered currently [2]. Is the omission intentional or accidental?

Can you be more specific about the omissions you see?
 - Maciej

> curious,
> David
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0388.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html
> ________________________________
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [public-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Cotton [Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 4:09 PM
> To: public-html@w3.org
> Cc: Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net); Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com)
> Subject: Draft HTML5 licensing survey
> On March 31, the HMTL WG chairs announced the opening of a discussion period on three HTML5 licensing options [1] offered to the WG by the W3C Management and Team.  That discussion period was to be followed by a one week survey of the WG on the three licensing options starting on April 28.
> 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.
> /paulc
> PS: Note that the draft survey is NOT open yet and WG members can review the structure and questions but you CANNOT yet provide answers.
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0757.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/html5-license-poll/
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
Received on Saturday, 23 April 2011 02:30:20 UTC

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