- From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:03:13 +0200
- To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Hi Chaals, Can you elaborate? I thought that basically citing a spec is perfectly admissible by the current license as long as it is a proper citation. This seems to validated by [1], where is says a link or URL plus the copyright notice must be provided along with the text that is being used. I am not sure what value the full inclusion of the spec has, when a reference is generally enough and also avoids document management issues. -- Kai [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231 > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:chaals@opera.com] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. April 2012 15:47 > An: public-w3process@w3.org > Betreff: Document licenses... > > Hi, > > a while ago there was a discussion driven by the HTMLWG about W3C's > copyright license. The request boiled down to "we want the right to > fork > W3C specs", and W3C decided that wouldn't happen. > > But along the way there was a lot of discussion about things like > including the spec in documentation, or tutorials, which is formally > not > allowed by the current license. Opera's formal position is that we > would > like to loosen the existing license to allow such uses, even if forking > remains explicitly prohibited. Are there others who think this would be > an > improvement that is worth the effort of achieving it? > > cheers > > Chaals > > -- > Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group > je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk > http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:03:53 UTC