RE: Draft HTML5 licensing survey

> Do you believe the Option 3 (and 1 and 2) reference to the W3C Document
> License (which applies only to unmodified copies), and its reference to
> the Copyright FAQ, and that FAQ's reference to a Patent Policy FAQ, and
> then the contents of said FAQ create patent licensing terms, in a way
> that materially differs from the MIT or CC0 licenses? If so, could you
> explain in more detail than just citing the links?

I don't see anything in the MIT or CC0 licenses that attempts to
incorporate, by reference or otherwise, the W3C Patent Policy or the rest of
its Document License or any of its FAQs. OTOH, both Option 1 and Option 3
expressly incorporate the W3C Document License (and hence the W3C Copyright
FAQ and Patent Policy) by reference, albeit clumsily. I believe the W3C IPR
policy should be self-consistent. That obviously doesn't bother others of
you, or perhaps you don't believe any rights are missing from CC0 or MIT.
OK. 

As I said before, I'm *only* concerned about the freedom to create
derivative software (and its associated documentation). I don't need to
change the spec. The CC0 license attempts to give me copyrights I don't need
and that the majority of W3C members don't want to part with.

I'm off traveling now, and must leave this topic to wait and see the results
of the survey.

/Larry




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:46 PM
> To: Lawrence Rosen
> Cc: public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Draft HTML5 licensing survey
> 
> 
> (Let me be clear that all of the below is with chair hat off.)
> 
> On Apr 25, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> 
> > The W3C Document License incorporates the Copyright FAQ by reference:
> > "However, if additional requirements (documented in the Copyright
> FAQ) are
> > satisfied, the right to create modifications or derivatives is
> sometimes
> > granted by the W3C to individuals complying with those requirements."
> See
> > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-
> 20021231.html.
> >
> > The Copyright FAQ (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-
> 20000620) then
> > says: "See our patent policy FAQ for information about translations
> and
> > patent commitments."
> >
> > The Patent Policy FAQ: http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq.html.
> >
> > Sort of circular, I admit, and it relies on multiple documents to say
> > similar things, but at least W3C is *trying* to establish a
> consistent IPR
> > policy relating to copyrights, patents and trademarks. Maybe now that
> W3C is
> > finally coming to terms with a complete HTML5 licensing policy, we
> can
> > gather all those references into one IPR document and one IPR FAQ?
> >
> > In the meantime, as I said earlier, I'd be completely satisfied to
> have
> > W3C's express copyright and patent permission to create any
> derivative
> > software I want.
> 
> My understanding of the W3C Patent Policy has always been that the
> patent licenses (or non-assertion promises) granted pursuant to it are
> completely independent of any copyright licenses. For example, such
> patent grants need not be given until the specification is a REC
> maturity, while the copyright license applies at all maturity levels.
> And the indirectly cited Patent License FAQ does not appear to be a
> patent license. Furthermore, these patent license terms apply even to
> parties who do not exercise the copyright license at all.
> 
> Also, the W3C Document License even seems to implicitly disclaim that
> any patent rights come with it; this is the only explicit mention of
> patents: "THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED "AS IS," AND COPYRIGHT HOLDERS MAKE
> NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT
> NOT LIMITED TO ... THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CONTENTS WILL NOT
> INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS..."
> 
> But maybe I am wrong.
> 
> Do you believe the Option 3 (and 1 and 2) reference to the W3C Document
> License (which applies only to unmodified copies), and its reference to
> the Copyright FAQ, and that FAQ's reference to a Patent Policy FAQ, and
> then the contents of said FAQ create patent licensing terms, in a way
> that materially differs from the MIT or CC0 licenses? If so, could you
> explain in more detail than just citing the links?
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej

Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 03:41:54 UTC