Re: Fwd: SVG 1.1 Java interface license

Hi Rigo.

Rigo Wenning:
> it is not clear to me what you are exactly asking for. The Apache XML 
> commons files now contain the right text in 
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xml/commons/trunk/java/external/

Yes, Michael Glavassevich updated the text there just recently, but I
pointed out to him since that not all of the files within that directory
are licensed under that text (only the DOM (Core, Events, etc.) Java
files, and not, for example SVG).

> There is no HTML file anymore, but the file "LICENSE.dom-software.txt" 
> contains the right text. 

Yes, sorry, I meant to say txt instead of html.

> With respect to the cosmetic change of wording between the DOM3 
> license text and the SVG 1.1 license text, I do not think they were 
> intended to carry any change in meaning:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/copyright-notice.html
> http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/copyright-notice.html

Ah, in fact I hadn’t noticed that page, /TR/SVG11/copyright-notice.html.
It does seem to have the Java package renaming clause there.  So SVG is
consistent with DOM (although I guess it would be better if this
copyright-notice.html were included in the zip file; we can address this
when we publish SVG 1.1 second edition).

> Concerning the bindings of the element traversal specification, I have 
> not seen a link to a zip file with bindings in them from the 
> Recommendation. The traversal specification itself is under the W3C 
> document license, including the annexes. If it really creates a 
> problem, we are able to release the bindings in a separate folder or 
> zip together with a different license without having to change the 
> Recommendation. 

I think there are problems with having it under the document license
(for example the “No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C
documents is granted pursuant to this license” part).  Putting a ZIP
file, including the interface licensed under the software license with
the extra clause, somewhere in W3C datespace, and then linking to it
from an erratum, looks like the best course of action.  Then there is
consistent licensing across the interfaces.

It may still be worth considering requiring the software license plus
Java package renaming clause be the recommended license as a policy, so
that WGs don’t have to consider it themselves.  (Would it even be worth
creating a new version of
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software to include the
clause?)

Thanks,

Cameron

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/

Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 00:52:30 UTC