- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:19:38 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 28, 2013, at 12:10 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: >> On Apr 26, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Since the WG hasn't yet approved this as a work item, I've removed it >>> from the csswg repo, and moved it into my github repo: >>> <http://github.com/tabatkins/specs>. >>> >>> You can see it live at >>> <http://rawgithub.com/tabatkins/specs/master/css-color/Overview.html>. >>> >>> I'll do all of my pre-WG-approval spec work in this repo from now on. >> >> I wonder if you violate the copyright of the W3C. The document is a clear copy of an existing W3C document with modifications. The W3C DOCUMENT LICENSE [1] applies and says: >> >> "" >> 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" >> "" >> >> You replaced the copyright notice by the Open Web Foundation Agreement Version 1.0 license which seems just applicable for new specs without any previous copyright of the W3C. > > Most of the text is new. Some parts are leftover from the old spec. > I can either: > > 1. Rewrite the *entire* spec, even the parts that are already acceptable, > 2. Delete the parts that are already acceptable, and define mine as an > awkward delta spec on top of Color 3, > 3. Use the W3C copyright notice, despite the fact that I'm not > producing this under the W3C (yet), > 4. Not do the spec at all, or > 5. Ignore this because it's a non-issue. > > I'm currently opting for #5. I'm pretty sure I'm already covered by > Fair Use under US copyright law. Even if I'm not, any problems will > go away entirely as soon as either this becomes a WG work item, or the > W3C stops being silly and adopts an open document license. > > If someone wants to make an issue of it, they're allowed to, but I'll > go on record as saying that that would make them a jerk. I would be careful with copyright violations. At least for your employer this should be everything else then a non-issue. Greetings, Dirk > > ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 28 April 2013 19:20:06 UTC