W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2009

RE: HTML 5 spec license and WG charter review

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:32:24 -0800
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D12127075745E648BBC075EF46983E1742DE60FA54@TK5-EXMBX-W603v.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Oh, I see, I'd mixed up my cause and effect.  Retracted.  Long day, not enough coffee.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:28 PM
To: Chris Wilson
Cc: Sam Ruby; Ian B. Jacobs; Michael(tm) Smith; Philippe Le Hegaret; www-archive@w3.org
Subject: RE: HTML 5 spec license and WG charter review

On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 14:22 -0800, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Do you think we should run this past the group first?

"first"? As in before something else? I'm not
sure I understand your question.

If somebody else wants to argue to change the charter,
that's fine by me; what I'm saying in this message is;
*I* am not arguing that changing the license requires
changing the charter.

> -----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 22:39:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:34 UTC