Re: Option 3

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> ****************************
> Copyright C 2010 W3CR (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). 
> 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. The notice is:
> "Copyright C 2010 W3CR (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). This software or document
> includes material copied from or derived from [title and URI of the W3C
> document]." 
> ****************************

As this is a new license, it further increases license proliferation, 
which Google finds objectionable.

Secondly, this license does not appear to be GPL-compatible, because it 
applies additional constraints (e.g. it does not allow the content to be 
merged into a non-software product).

Finally, the terms seem to disallow forking, which misses one of the main 
reasons for a liberal license, namely, to allow spec forking so as to 
encourage us to do a good job.

In conclusion, it's not clear that this really solve the problem of the 
W3C HTML spec being under an overly-restrictive license. I highly suggest 
we simply choose an existing liberal open source license (such as the MIT 
license) rather than try to create a a new license.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 23:15:49 UTC