- From: Doug Jones <doug_b_jones@me.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:18:51 -0500
- To: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>, HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
On 2011 Mar 09, at 07:27, Smylers wrote: > Doug Jones writes: > >> - Any work describing a change to how something in the W3C HTML5 >> specification is to behave (like adding an attribute to an element) >> by changing only that part of the wording and >> -- republishing the work as the W3C HTML5 *or* the HTML5 >> specification is *not* permitted. >> -- publishing it as a separate document not claiming to be a >> technical specification is OK, although not authorized. >> -- publishing it as a separate document *and* claiming to be a >> technical specification and not including or implying 'HTML' or >> 'W3C' in the title is OK, although not authorized. > > Hi. I'm still struggling to follow this. What's the difference > between 'OK' and 'authorized'? > > Surely I am either permitted to do something with the spec text or I am > not -- I don't understand what the third category is. > > Thanks. > > Smylers > -- > http://twitter.com/Smylers2 > Within Lawrence Rosen's reply to Ian is "So W3C probably can't actually use copyright law to prevent the forking of a specification no matter how desperately some W3C members want to do that. But don't demand that W3C give you explicit permission to do so. That is demanding too much of a standards organization that also has its trademarks to protect." So my 'OK' is that you can publish, but it is without the explicit permission (authorization) of the W3C. -Doug Jones
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 14:19:26 UTC