- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:04:59 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>, public-html@w3.org, PSIG <member-psig@w3.org>
On 03/22/2011 12:26 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > The FSF maintains otherwise and have publicly stated so[2]. It is my > understanding that if this license is approved by the W3C that the FSF > will take a similar position on this option. This is based on my > understanding of the outcome when actual lawyers employed by W3C member > companies talked to actual lawyers of the FSF who were involved in the > drafting of the GPL license. Hmm, maybe I misread the thread, but I thought the Google lawyers claimed something different. In particular """My lawyer said in no uncertain terms that what you propose as "option 3" would not let people publish derivative works of these specifications as specifications. Thus, it is in our opinion unacceptable as a solution to the problem of how to enable people to publish derivative works of these specifications as specifications.""" [1] Presumably these apparently-conflicting claims could only be resolved if it is acceptable under the GPL to have such a field of use restriction. My belief was that it is not. If my belief is wrong, it would be nice to have a clear explanation of why it is wrong rather than just "some lawyers said so". If I have misunderstood for some other reason it would be nice to get a clear explanation of what I have misunderstood. (note: none of the above should be read as endorsement for a particular outcome or set of requirements. I am just trying to understand the situation and, as the thread has gone on, I feel I have become less enlightened, not more). [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.64.1103100507380.944@ps20323.dreamhostps.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 13:05:45 UTC