- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:36:00 -0800
- To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
- Cc: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
> On Dec 16, 2014, at 11:20 , Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote: > > 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 Yes, I think the software license is a good model. But I am not keen to confuse software licenses and document licenses. > > 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 Yes! David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2014 20:36:29 UTC