- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:06:09 -0700
- To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, PSIG <member-psig@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote: >> > 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 agree that Lachlan's tone here is not called for. > I've made the point here before that "permission to do X" is not the legal equivalent of "restriction on doing ~X". The fact that W3C claims a copyright on the document does add a whole lot of explicit restrictions though, right? Specifically, it adds basically limits all forms of copying except the ones afforded by fair use. Since fair use and the license only removes some of these explicit restrictions, that still leaves a whole lot of restrictions though? Some of these restrictions does not appear to me to be compatible with GPL. / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 21:07:12 UTC