- From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:12:05 -0400
- 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. Cheers David
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 13:13:48 UTC