- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:41:38 -0500
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 11/25/2014 09:28 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 11/25/14 8:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> It is quite common for an owner to publish their work to different >> audiences under different terms. > > <p role=citizen IANAL> > True, and although copyright law presumably permits W3C to legally copy > WHATWG's work, it seems a bit anti-social for W3C to then publish the > copy with a more restrictive copyright than WHATWG used. We disagree here. To elaborate: I've participated in the Apache Software Foundation for over 15 years, and among other things have held the title of VP of Legal Affairs there. I'm currently serving on the Board of Directors. We (the ASF) publish our work under a liberal license with is intentionally compatible with both Free software licenses (including GPLv3 and MPLv2), and proprietary licenses. This is an activity that we actively encourage. As a consequence, much of our software is ubiquitous. If the W3C wishes to publish my work under more restrictive terms than I make it available, I'm not only OK with that, I'm willing to actively help. What I am not OK with is conditions placed on me on what other activities I may do with my work. That's the point I want to resolve with W3C legal. > -AB - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 14:42:34 UTC