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

Re: Draft HTML5 licensing survey

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:49:25 -0700
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <FA8DC290-C3BF-4C12-AB82-EFEC232A4688@apple.com>
To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>

On Apr 25, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:

> 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". 

Can you cite the extra patent coverage or clarity that the Option 3 license has relative to CC0 or the MIT license? I expect a pointer would be useful to WG members.


> /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 17:49:57 UTC

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