RE: Draft HTML5 licensing survey

Maciej Stachowiak asked:
> 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.

I'm being intentionally precise (anal-retentive, as are all lawyers and
standards people). Options 1 and 3, for example, include these words:

   W3C liability and trademark rules apply. As a whole, this document 
   may be used according to the terms of the W3C Document License. 
   In addition, to facilitate implementation of the technical specifications
   set forth in this document, anyone may prepare and distribute derivative
   works and portions of this document in software, in supporting materials
   accompanying software, and in documentation of software, PROVIDED that
   all such works include the notice below....

This means that there is in overarching license, the W3C Document License,
which specifies copyright and patent terms for all W3C documents. *In
addition*, there is permission to prepare and distribute software *without
limiting the software license in any way*. 

That means that we in Apache can create and distribute HTML5 software under,
e.g., the Apache License, and that we also explicitly get what we've always
gotten from W3C for patents and other copyright rights. 

I suppose you could add those provisions to the CC0 and MIT licenses, but
then you'd have to explain how CC0 also says NO PATENT RIGHTS and MIT is
AMBIGUOUS ABOUT PATENTS. You would never allow such uncertain provisions in
an HTML5 technical specification, would you, much less the license for that
specification? :-)

/Larry



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Maciej Stachowiak
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 10:49 AM
> To: Lawrence Rosen
> Cc: public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Draft HTML5 licensing survey
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
> 
> >
> > /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 23:30:21 UTC