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

Re: Draft HTML5 licensing survey

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:06:18 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimP19R+JsYPFHQEkSkNFSznnzZKGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 19:42, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> 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.

With all due respect, what is the utility of asserting/supposing
alternate 3rd party opinions [1] ?

Currently there are zero such people who have emailed the list. If
there are such individuals, they can email the list themselves;
otherwise hypothesizing their existence is not useful.

> but since CC0 was the proposal, I assume at least some people prefer that.

There are at least 3 individuals / organizations who have explicitly
sent email to this list proposing/supporting CC0, so yes, including
that amongst the choices is a logical step.

> I don't know if the converse is true

I for one prefer CC0 over "MIT-style" due to the ambiguity of the
latter and in particular the fact that CC0 has been
written/checked/accepted by Creative Commons' lawyers explicitly
taking into account international laws/jurisdictions regarding

Since W3C operates internationally, CC0 being more
internationally-aware/applicable makes it strongly preferable to an
"MIT-style" license.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word#Passive_and_middle_voice

http://tantek.com/ - I made an HTML5 tutorial! http://tantek.com/html5
Received on Monday, 25 April 2011 03:07:26 UTC

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