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

Re: Draft HTML5 licensing survey

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 19:42:45 -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: <268EEBD2-91E7-4848-A6DE-6AD1BF415EBE@apple.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>

On Apr 24, 2011, at 11:49 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> MIT and CC0 are different options. Do you feel that both should be included?
> I don't believe anyone who supports a permissive license feels very
> strongly about which one exactly should be chosen.  For the purposes
> of the present discussion, it makes the most sense to me to have a
> single fourth option.  It could either ask whether we support "a
> preexisting widely-used permissive license, such as MIT, CC0, or the
> three-clause BSD license" (or some words to that effect); or it could
> pick a single representative license, such as CC0.  I don't think it
> would serve any purpose to have separate options for MIT and CC0 at
> this stage.  If the W3C administration does wind up allowing a
> permissive license to be used, the details can be worked out later.

I believe there is a nonzero number of people who would support an MIT-style license but not CC0. I don't know if the converse is true, but since CC0 was the proposal, I assume at least some people prefer that.

Received on Monday, 25 April 2011 02:43:14 UTC

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