W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-ig@w3.org > April to June 2009

RE: revision strategies [was RE: [Moderator Action] Re: Progress on SVG book]

From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:12:05 -0400
Message-ID: <1835D662B263BC4E864A7CFAB2FEEB3D0225DBF9@msfexch01.srunet.sruad.edu>
To: "G. Wade Johnson" <gwadej@anomaly.org>
Cc: "Jeff Schiller" <codedread@gmail.com>, "Rob Russell" <rob@latenightpc.com>, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>, "SVG IG List" <public-svg-ig@w3.org>
G. Wade wrote:

>Possibly worth looking into Creative Commons licenses. I use them for
>much of the text I write. They are similar in intent to the open source
>licenses, but geared to "media" instead of "software".

Yes, you're right, and thanks for reminding me of that option. The
share-alike option (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) is
currently being voted upon by Wikipedia contributors to handle that
venue's licensing strategy.

Actually, I was thinking about this earlier this morning and remembered
that the W3C's interest must (for copyright reasons) be taken into
account in whatever is decided. The W3C recently collected input on its
license agreements for W3C documents, though concerning the
applicability of that input vis a vis the present document, I'm not
quite clear. I honestly don't remember the language that was agreed upon
between me and W3C, but it involves sharing the copyright.

I'm pretty sure that if the SVG-IG comes up with a strategy to manage
versions and keep an "authoritative" source file at W3C, then that will
probably be fine with them and me, but perhaps it's best not to
speculate too much.

I also happened to think that it's probably best for you folks to
correct any gross misconceptions that I have about any of these things
before my thinking congeals too much, lest stubbornness of some form may
find its way into my brain.

Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 13:13:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:28:24 UTC