- From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 14:36:29 +0000
- To: HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
Doug Jones writes: > > 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. > > 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. That's "probably". If we agree this is a situation we wish to be allowed then only "probably" allowing it is a failure. What's the disadvantage in definitely and unambiguously allowing it? > So my 'OK' is that you can publish, but it is without the explicit > permission (authorization) of the W3C. What benefit is gained by having authorization of the W3C? Smylers -- http://twitter.com/Smylers2
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 14:36:57 UTC