RE: Draft HTML5 licensing survey

I suppose it is legitimate to record votes in the W3C HTML5 WG in favor of
other license alternatives besides the ones that PSIG worked on, including
CC0. After all, I also proposed an alternative (Option 3) that PSIG
complained arrived too late for them to consider fairly. 

In a perfect world, I might also support CC0 for all specifications, and the
hell with copyright restrictions and patents on industry standards! This
time, though, in our imperfect world, I can't support a copyright-only
license for software. And I've never supported a patent-ambiguous license
like MIT for software. So pending discussion within Apache about our own
internal consensus, my personal vote is still for Option 3. This Option 3
allows each of us to choose our own software license without seeking
consensus on that within the FOSS community.

Please remember that this survey isn't just about what we want, but about
what copyright and patent owners are willing to give. Remember that dirty
word: "Compromise". 

/Larry

bcc: w3c@apache


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Maciej Stachowiak
> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 8:33 PM
> To: Tantek Çelik
> Cc: Aryeh Gregor; Paul Cotton; public-html@w3.org; Sam Ruby
> (rubys@intertwingly.net)
> Subject: Re: Draft HTML5 licensing survey
<snip>
> 
> In this case, I have relevant first-hand knowledge. Specifically, I
> expect poll survey from Apple representatives would support an MIT
> license but not CC0. I am not interested in pushing for either of these
> licenses specifically. All I am suggesting is that "MIT or CC0" would
> be an ambiguous option which some people may have a hard time
> responding to. WG members are welcome to take this into account when
> making suggestions on construction of the poll, if they wish.
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
>

Received on Monday, 25 April 2011 16:00:54 UTC