W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2007

Nearly adopted; sanity check requested [Was: Proposed changes to ?Semantic Web logo policies]

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:35:13 +0000
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <1193780113.28431.124.camel@localhost>
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 20:26 +0000, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> Hi all,

> Please send your comments to semantic-web@w3.org on the proposed
> policy by 29 October 2007.

Hi all,

All the comments were supportive. Therefore, with lots of help
from the W3C staff (especially Rigo Wenning) I've implemented the 
proposal and updated:  http://www.w3.org/2007/10/sw-logos

I've left the status as "near adoption." At this time I would prefer not
to make significant changes in the policy, since none was requested
during the past week. If you see any bugs, however, please let me know
before close of business Boston time on 1 November and I'll fix them.
Also, I need to work with Ivan Herman on the metadata for the
SVG versions. I'd like to freeze a version this week and then get
some more experience before making lots more changes.

I've added some questions to the FAQ as well. Note in particular this

7. Why did you use the W3C Document License rather than a Creative
Commons license?

Our goal is to allow certain types of derivative works (changes in size,
colors) and to require attribution in a certain way (alt text or a
specific URI). It is not clear from the Creative Commons Web site
whether we can use a Creative Commons license to achieve this. On the
one hand, we find, for example for "by-nd" this text: "You must
attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor
(but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of
the work)." However, in section 4(b) of the detailed licensing terms, we
find: "The credit required by this Section 4(b) may be implemented in
any reasonable manner;...." which seems to be in contradiction with (or
at least more permissive than) the first assertion.

The W3C Document License is very similar to "by-nd", and adding a
constraint on not-for-profit use is similar to "by-nc-nd." If we learn
more and there turns out not to be a contradiction, we may also start to
use the appropriate Creative Commons license in this policy.

If you really confident that we are misreading the CC licensing
terms, please let me know. We have no objection to using the CC
license if it applies.

Thank you all for your help,

 _ Ian
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 21:35:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:03 UTC