Re: Option 3

On 03/22/2011 01:53 PM, Dailey, David P. wrote:
> Yes, Sam, now that I reread your statement of consensus [1], I stand
> corrected. One of the things that changed in the last 2+ years was my
> memory of what happened. Sorry for the flub.  Henri Sivonen’s use cases
> [2] overtly allow forking, and it appears that folks’ consensus was
> indeed content with that!
>
> I’m still a bit confused about what are Options 1 and 2.

The history here is that the PSIG (http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/) was 
tasked to produce a license that takes into account the input of both 
the HTML WG (this input is available publicly) and the input of the W3C 
members (this input is only available to W3C members).

My understanding is that the PSIG has not reached consensus and as many 
as 3 options may come out of that process.  While no other options have 
yet to be presented to this WG, my hope is that this will happen shortly 
(as in, the next few weeks).

> And is there
> anything like the use case #4 in [3] that the current license language
> would not allow?  As Larry points out, Option 3 does not disallow uses
> such as are contained in [1] but which are not specifically covered by
> the license, but am I correct to conclude that  some of the apparent
> disagreement here stems from not extending such permissions overtly?

That could very well be.  My hope is that the outcome of the discussion 
in this WG is clear statements of objections to any or all of these 
licenses.

> Regards
>
> David
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0388.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0093.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0324.html

- Sam Ruby

> *From:*Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:16 PM
> *To:* julian.reschke@gmx.de; ian@hixie.ch
> *Cc:* Dailey, David P.; public-html@w3.org; member-psig@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Option 3
>
> It is quite possible that things have changed in the last 2+ years, but
> I will state that at one time there was a consensus to forward on these
> use cases and that Ian's statements are accurate.
>
> /Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless/
>
>
>
> -----Original message-----
>
> *From: *Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>*
> To: *Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>*
> Cc: *"Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>, "public-html@w3.org"
> <public-html@w3.org>, PSIG <member-psig@w3.org>*
> Sent: *Tue, Mar 22, 2011 16:23:54 GMT+00:00*
> Subject: *Re: Option 3
>
> On 22.03.2011 17:07, Ian Hickson wrote:
>  > On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Dailey, David P. wrote:
>  >>
>  >> When these issues were discussed in 2009, I was of the opinion [1], as I
>  >> gather Larry Rosen has said that the consensus of the Working Group was
>  >> that forking of the spec was not desirable.
>  >
>  > This is incorrect. It is possibly the majority opinion of the AC
>  > representatives of company members of the W3C that forking should not be
>  > allowed, but it is not the consensus opinion of the HTML working
> group. In
>  > fact, two of the use cases the working group presented to the W3C are
>  > explicitly about forking. A solution that disallows forking wouldn't be
>  > one that addresses the requests of the group.
>
> ...for the record: I don't believe there *is* a consensus opinion of the
> HTML WG.
>
>  > ...
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 18:16:13 UTC