Re: Encoding Standard

On 10/14/2013 12:03 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>> I believe that the previous Document License was even more explicit that it
>> did not permit forking.  Now that a License permits forking, we are merely
>> putting that permission within some context.
> I don't think a license is how you would generally express your views
> as an organization or person.

Actually, a license is exactly how the organization expresses its views 
about the usage of the documents under license.

>   You do that through a blog post, press
> report, or a FAQ.

Of course, the reason for the FAQ now for the forkable license is 
because there is a change to a more liberal license.  We didn't feel we 
needed an FAQ to explain the old license.

>
> E.g. I know some in the WHATWG do not condone the forking done by the
> W3C, as we see it leading to confusion with implementers and
> reviewers, but our license still permits it.

In the past I've requested meetings with the WHATWG so we can improve 
our communications.  I would very much appreciate opportunities to unite 
the web community and reduce confusion with implementers and reviewers.  
The offer is still open.

In the interim we have responded to requests from the WHATWG community 
to reduce confusion.  In direct response we have introduced revisions 
within W3C by consensus (such as permissive licenses in Community Groups 
and now forkable licenses in HTML) to try to reduce the confusion with 
implementers and reviewers.

I am well aware that for many in the WHATWG community that today's 
consensus is not enough and I'm sorry that we are not there yet. The AB 
continues to take up this topic this year [1 item 3].

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2013OctDec/0004.html

>
>

Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 16:54:15 UTC