Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec

Let me start by stating that I'm not particularly attached to either the
WHATWG or the W3C.
I care for the Web, and this issue, which seems to be spinning out of
control, puts it at risk.

On 01/09/2014 18:28, Daniel Glazman wrote:
[snip]
> Three possibilities:

> 1. the legal terms do apply and you're adding an extra unwritten
>   constraint excluding W3C from these legal terms. You will need to
>   have it written down. In my opinion, this will give a very negative
>   image of WHATWG.

> 2. the legal terms do apply, including to W3C, end of the story.

> 3. the issue above is a showstopper for you guys and the legal
>   terms should be changed so quotes are allowed but forking by other
>   standard bodies is not, something that seems completely contrary to
>   the spirit of total openness of WHATWG and the countless requests to
>   be able to fork W3C specs.

Here's a fourth possibility: the WHATWG and the W3C will reach some
compromise on this issue and move on to work together towards the greater
good.

A few points I wonder about:
* Why is forking and/or copy&pasting helpful for patent protection?
Wouldn't it be easier to get the WHATWG spec authors to sign some patent
waiver as part of their CG?
* If copying is a must (frozen versions, etc), can they be clearly marked
as such, with links towards the canonical, living standard document? That
would go a long way in avoiding author confusion.
* Can we get rid of the "Editors" section and simply point towards version
control commit count? That would help avoiding ego wars regarding position
in the editors list. Commit logs tend to be objective.