- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:55:02 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- cc: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 04/26/2011 12:11 PM, James Graham wrote: >> On 04/26/2011 05:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> >>> While some sort of accommodation for input relating to additional >>> options is likely to be in the next draft of the poll; a specific option >>> for MIT is not likely to be included as we have yet to have somebody >>> specifically advocate for that option. >> >> On 04/25/2011 05:33 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> > Specifically, I >> > expect poll survey from Apple representatives would support an MIT >> > license but not CC0. >> >> You may not consider this as "advocacy" but it is enough to suggest that >> including CC0 (which has clearly been advocated) but not MIT (which has >> merely been "supported") would result in significant information loss. > > Maciej understands and agrees to the bar as I stated it. That is good to know, but does not address my point. > There are plenty of licenses that various people have considered and rejected > for one reason or another. We are not going to enumerate all of them, even > if somebody may expect that their company might support one or more of these > options. This seems to be a slippery slope argument. I don't see that it applies unless there is a demonstration that such a slope actually exists. What are the other licenses that we would be forced to include? I don't recall any other licenses that have been discussed by this group and got any serious measure of support. What is the reason for excluding options upfront? It seems bizzare to have a poll where options known to have support are prefiltered. It seems particularly strange where the discussion has indicated that the options being removed might represent common ground for at least some of the involved parties.
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 17:55:34 UTC