RE: What is Process Good For? licensing

> I believe we have that in the W3C Software License, a BSD variant that's already recognized as OSI Open Source and GPL-compatible.
Is that appropriate for specs (as opposed to code) being incubated in GitHub/a Community Group? I think we want to keep this as simple as possible.


-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wseltzer@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:21 AM
To: David Singer; public-w3process
Subject: Re: What is Process Good For? licensing

On 12/16/2014 02:13 PM, David Singer wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 16, 2014, at 9:18 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> What's wrong with something like the BSD license?  or asking Creative Commons to create a simple document license that is compatible with GPL (and other popular software licenses) and that requires things like preserving copyright notices and disclaimers?
> 
> It would be good to have a simple ‘please attribute but otherwise do as you will” text (copyright) license in existence that does not have the problems of cc-by.  ideally it already exists and we avoid license proliferation.

I believe we have that in the W3C Software License, a BSD variant that's already recognized as OSI Open Source and GPL-compatible.

http://opensource.org/licenses/W3C


We're aiming to take a first step toward more liberal licensing with the proposal, currently before the AC, to offer Code Components under the Software License:

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2014/doc-license.html


--Wendy


--
Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office) Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
http://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)