- From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:22:39 -0800
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- CC: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Do you think we should run this past the group first? -----Original Message----- From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:01 PM To: Sam Ruby; Ian B. Jacobs Cc: Chris Wilson; Michael(tm) Smith; Philippe Le Hegaret; www-archive@w3.org Subject: HTML 5 spec license and WG charter review Sam, I mentioned today that I thought changing the license we use to publish the HTML 5 spec required changing the charter, but in trying to construct the argument in detail, I see that it falls apart... I thought that by approving the charter, the membership had agreed that HTML 5 would be published using the W3C document license, but I see that the W3C process document already delegates copyright details to the staff/Team in such a way that it's subject to change with notice but not review: "The Team is NOT REQUIRED to publish a technical report that does not conform to the Team's Publication Rules (e.g., for naming, style, and copyright requirements). These rules are subject to change. The Team MUST inform group Chairs and the Advisory Board of any changes." -- http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#DocumentsGeneral While I'm sure Philippe will socialize the idea with the W3C membership in due course, I think changing the license we use to publish the HTML 5 spec is a decision the Team is authorized to make without membership review of an updated HTML WG charter. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 22:21:36 UTC