- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:06:18 -0700
- 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 copyright. Since W3C operates internationally, CC0 being more internationally-aware/applicable makes it strongly preferable to an "MIT-style" license. Thanks, Tantek [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