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

Re: Draft HTML5 licensing survey

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:25:18 +1000
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=pjFVHq8_ZJazxyj-LGg-Gy-i3cA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tantek «elik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, 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 Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Tantek «elik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> 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.

It can't hurt to have both CC0 and MIT-style listed as alternative
options and an additional comment box for people that are actually
keen for a license not mentioned in any discussions yet.

The analysis of the results can then aggregate such permissive license
votes if that is all the information that is required to answer a
simple question of votes for/against such a license. But at least you
have the information on individuals and can also do more detailed data
analysis on the survey.


> 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 03:26:06 UTC

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