W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2004

[whatwg] Copyright of specifications

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:56:43 +0100
Message-ID: <851c8d31040828045610b40901@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 11:47:24 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> > So you are acting within WHAT-WG as a representative of Opera, and not
> > as an individual, is that what you're saying?
> 
> At the moment there is no practical difference.

So that has changed from the previous situation where you made it very
clear you were doing this as an individual.

> I don't see why Opera lawyers would care about what is urgent in a WHATWG
> context.

no, but you could still ask for an urgent response, then it would be
up to Opera if they decided it was a priority or not, I would hope
Opera would acknowledge the importance of the WHAT-WG and respond
accordingly.
> > This doesn't seem particularly open?
> 
> As far as I can tell, Opera's legal advice is not even remotely covered by
> the WHATWG charter.

Nope, I was just making an observation.

> > No, that is not what I asked, I asked that you had Opera's intention and
> > lawyer advice that the WHAT-WG documents be provided under that licence
> > in writing
> 
> Yes; I copied and pasted the license that is in the draft from an e-mail.

Could you please ensure that the email is appropriately archived and
would be available to a court for anyone who requested it?  Perhaps
register it with some 3rd party?

> > if you are able to produce that in a court at a future date if Opera (or
> > the future copyright owners) decide to revoke that licence.
> 
> I thought you said that even with the license, it could be revoked? In
> which case how would this be useful?

Any revokation would likely result in a court case, hence the reason
to ensure that documents are available.

> > as to the seperate issue of ownership, I believe I'd already explained
> > why a consortium that anyone can join is reasonable protection, whereas
> > a single company in the industry is something to be more concerned with.
> 
> Anyone can join WHATWG. WHATWG contributors are equivalent to W3C members
> in terms of status. W3C _team_ membership, which is equivalent to WHATWG
> membership, is most certainly _not_ open to anyone.

I think this is highly misleading, TEAM membership is nothing like
WHAT-WG membership - the WHAT-WG members have the power to choose what
enters a specification and when a specification is complete etc.  the
W3C team do not, the final arbiter is the AC reps - all member company
representatives (if we ignore the director for now)  Also the W3C's
structure limits its actions by nature of US laws AIUI.

Jim.
Received on Saturday, 28 August 2004 04:56:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:36 UTC