RE: Option 3

> >  From the original post[1] "This Option 3 license, however,
> > contains no express restrictions on downstream uses".
> 
> Please stop quoting blatant lies.  It absolutely does contain
> restrictions.  The W3C Document Licence states:
> 
>    "No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents is
>     granted pursuant to this license."
> 
> That imposes the restrictions.  Option 3 only carves out 3 exceptions
> for software, supporting materials accompanying software, and
> documentation of software.


Perhaps it is appropriate here to ask that we not use phrases like "blatant lies" without greater care.

I've made the point here before that "permission to do X" is not the legal equivalent of "restriction on doing ~X". Some things, such as fair use activities or using non-patented technology, for example, you have the right to do without asking anyone's permission. That's even more generous than the MIT license. :-) Ask your own lawyer to confirm that and to understand the limits of those freedoms. People creating industry standards ought to reflect on that distinction and perhaps not even bother asking for permission to do certain things. On the other hand, an explicit "permission to create (FOSS) software ... and documentation" from W3C will make most of our work easier.

/Larry

P.S. Other than this note sent mostly to call down the rhetoric, I'm waiting for W3C to address the HTML WG directly about licensing options before I make any other statements here.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Lachlan Hunt
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 12:25 PM
> To: Sam Ruby
> Cc: Ian Hickson; public-html@w3.org; PSIG
> Subject: Re: Option 3
<snip>

Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 20:55:53 UTC