Re: W3C specs reformatted

Ilkka Huotari wrote:

> Ok, I see that this URL
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#format
> talks actually about the same thing - if the content is changed then the
> republishing cannot be granted, but if the content stays the same, then
> publishing is generally granted.

No, Ilkka, what the Document license, which applies in this case, says is:

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231


And what it says is:

No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents is 
granted pursuant to this license.

Adding additional stylesheets is a modification. It changes the bits in 
the document.

> I will change the stylesheet today, and see that everything complies to the
> license.
> 
> So, I guess we can consider this conversation as the notification of those
> reformatted specs - I assume the knowledge of them ahs spread wide enough
> and there wouldn't be any badwill from the publishing - as log as I change
> the specs to comply the standards.

Please see above. If you modify them, you are not in compliance with the 
Document License. It's more than copyright that applies.

> Sorry if this was confusing, but it wasn't clear to alt.html folks either -
> there were opinions that a permission should be asked if reformatted specs
> are distributed, so I decided to do so.

I read the thread. It would have been better to ask first.

> Ilkka
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Janet Daly" <janet@w3.org>
> To: "Ilkka Huotari" <ihuotari@cc.hut.fi>
> Cc: <site-policy@w3.org>; <site-comments@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 8:55 PM
> Subject: Re: W3C specs reformatted
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>Ilkka Huotari wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Thanks for the answer.
>>>
>>>Could they be published if I change the stylesheets to comply to your
>>>standards?
>>
>>>There isn't any major reason to why I have changed the stylesheets - I
>>>didn't know about those rules originally. So I could very easily change
> 
> the
> 
>>>stylesheets to the same what you have (they could be exactly the same, I
>>>think).
>>
>>Ilkka, it may help for you to read the document license. Everything I am
>>telling you comes from there:
>>
>>http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231
>>
>>
>>"Permission to copy, and distribute the contents of this document, or
>>the W3C document from which this statement is linked, in any medium for
>>any purpose and without fee or royalty is hereby granted, provided that
>>you include the following on ALL copies of the document, or portions
>>thereof, that you use:
>>
>>    1. A link or URL to the original W3C document.
>>    2. The pre-existing copyright notice of the original author, or if
>>it doesn't exist, a notice (hypertext is preferred, but a textual
>>representation is permitted) of the form: "Copyright ©
>>[$date-of-document] World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts Institute
>>of Technology, European Research Consortium for Informatics and
>>Mathematics, Keio University). All Rights Reserved.
>>http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231"
>>    3. If it exists, the STATUS of the W3C document.
>>
>>When space permits, inclusion of the full text of this NOTICE should be
>>provided. We request that authorship attribution be provided in any
>>software, documents, or other items or products that you create pursuant
>>to the implementation of the contents of this document, or any portion
>>thereof."
>>
>>This is the policy for just making a copy with no modifications.
>>
>>So, if you were reposting the documents as is on your site, these are
>>the rules you have to follow.
>>
>>
>>>So... if this could help it?
>>>
>>
>> >
>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Ilkka
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: "Janet Daly" <janet@w3.org>
>>>To: "Ilkka Huotari" <ihuotari@cc.hut.fi>
>>>Cc: <site-policy@w3.org>; <site-comments@w3.org>
>>>Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 8:18 PM
>>>Subject: Re: W3C specs reformatted
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear Ilkka,
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for your request. Susan Lesch of the W3C Communications team
>>>>provided an earlier response, on the site-comments mailing list:
>>>>
>>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/2004May/0051.html
>>>>
>>>>But what remains is whether what you are proposing to do complies with
>>>>the Document License at W3C:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231
>>>>
>>>>No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents is
>>>>granted pursuant to this license. So, changing the stylesheets and
>>>>republishing them is not permitted.
>>>>
>>>>I appreciate your caution and request, but inform you that it is not
>>>>possible for these to be published.
>>>>
>>>>Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>Janet
>>>>
>>>>-- 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>>>
>>>>Janet Daly, Head of Communications
>>>>MIT/CSAIL, Building 32-G518
>>>>32 Vassar Street
>>>>Cambridge, MA 02139
>>>>
>>>>voice: 617.253.5884
>>>>fax:   617.258.5999
>>>>http://www.w3.org/
>>>>janet@w3.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ilkka Huotari wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>This email concerns the reformatted W3C specs that I made. Only this
>>>
>>>late I
>>>
>>>
>>>>>am asking you for the permission to do/distribute those versions:
>>>>>
>>>>>You may (or may not) have seen that I made some reformatted specs of
>>>
>>>HTML
>>>
>>>
>>>>>4.01, CSS 1, 2, 2.1 specs. The url was http://www.visiomode.com/docs/
>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>
>>>>>there were CHMs and web versions.
>>>>>
>>>>>I just found out that I didn't follow the proper procedure to publish
>>>
>>>these
>>>
>>>
>>>>>and I want to say that I'm sorry and express my apologies. I did read
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>document use statement which was linked from HTML 4.01 mainpage, but
>>>
>>>maybe I
>>>
>>>
>>>>>should have been more careful. Your statement
>>>>>(http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents-19990405)
> 
> grants
> 
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>use and distribution but maybe I was crossing the line with the
>>>
>>>reformatted
>>>
>>>
>>>>>versions, although I didn't change the content/HTML code.
>>>>>
>>>>>I made CHMs and web versions, so maybe my versions were actually
>>>
>>>derivatives
>>>
>>>
>>>>>and not only distribution of your material.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, I want to now ask for your permission to do the conversion (well,
>>>
>>>it's
>>>
>>>
>>>>>already done), and the permission of distribution. If you haven't seen
>>>
>>>these
>>>
>>>
>>>>>reformatted specs, I can email them/put them somewhere for you to view.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is a discussion at alt.html wth the subject line "W3C specs
>>>>>reformatted."
>>>>>
>>>>>So, sorry again for my hasty actions... I tried to follow the right
>>>>>procedure, but apparently I made an error.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ilkka Huotari
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>-- 
>>
>>
>>World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>
>>Janet Daly, Head of Communications
>>MIT/CSAIL, Building 32-G518
>>32 Vassar Street
>>Cambridge, MA 02139
>>
>>voice: 617.253.5884
>>fax:   617.258.5999
>>http://www.w3.org/
>>janet@w3.org
>>
>>

-- 


World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Janet Daly, Head of Communications
MIT/CSAIL, Building 32-G518
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA 02139

voice: 617.253.5884
fax:   617.258.5999
http://www.w3.org/
janet@w3.org

Received on Friday, 21 May 2004 15:51:39 UTC