Re: Draft HTML5 licensing survey

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 10:05 AM, 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.
>> 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.
> To be totally clear, I did *not* intend to explicitly advocate for MIT license, either on my own behalf or on behalf of Apple. I drew the distinction because I wanted to avoid a situation where a question would say "CC0 or MIT", which would be hard for Apple to respond to.

Maybe a general question if people would support a license that allows
forking would be appropriate with a text field that asks for a
suggestion on the most appropriate license and another one with a list
of unacceptable licenses.

Just my 2c.

Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 02:36:24 UTC