Re: What is Process Good For? licensing

> 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