- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:34:59 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.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, 24 Apr 2011, 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 strongly agree that some "permissive license" options should be on the survey. It seems rather less important to me whether each license has its own option or whether respondents are encouraged to use the comments box to record any restrictions on their answer.
Received on Monday, 25 April 2011 20:35:41 UTC