W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [css-color] Starting CSS Color 4

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>
Message-ID: <72BB01DF-9957-4320-83CF-F1E2FFEAAE28@adobe.com>

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.


> ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 28 April 2013 19:20:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:29 UTC