- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 19:42:45 -0700
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
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. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 25 April 2011 02:43:14 UTC