- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:10:57 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>, Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, David Bruant wrote: >> >> The intent is clear: the WHATWG publishes documents in the public domain >> for very good reason. Anyone (W3C included!) can reuse them under close >> to no condition, not even credit. > > I can speak pretty authoritatively to the intent, if that's what you are > interested in. > > The relevant philosophy in the WHATWG context is multi-pronged: > > 1: Specs should be reusable in software, documentation, tutorials, and the > like, without any barrier, whether free software or proprietary software, > whether in books printed for money or FAQs that are themselves free to > copy, whether in online courses with $10,000 entry fees or demos on > street corners that are organised by marketing departments. > > 2: A spec author can "go bad" without realising it, so it should be > possible to fork a specification if that happens, without the author > having any control over this. > > 3: Forking specifications, publishing multiple copies of specifications, > and publishing easy-to-find-with-a-search-engine snapshots of > specifications, are all things that hurt interoperability by making > implementors reference different requirements. The only time that forking > a specification is justified is #2 above. > > We use open licenses on our specifications because of #1 and #2. We can't > legally prevent #3 while allowing #1 and #2, so we rely on common sense > and good faith to achieve #3. I'm not sure in what capacity you are writing this. However I'll note that not everyone at least at Mozilla agree with #3. I forget exactly what policies govern WHATWG, but I don't know if the above can be considered an official WHATWG policy. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 26 November 2012 01:11:54 UTC