Re: DOM, Promises, and licensing

On 7/12/2013 1:36 PM, Alex Russell wrote:
> Thanks for responding, Jeff. I know your time is limited.

My time is unlimited if it involves supporting you, Anne, or the TAG.

>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org 
> <mailto:jeff@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 7/12/2013 10:01 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
>>     Hi Jeff,
>>
>>     We have a problem and I understand that you -- and pretty much
>>     nobody else -- can solve it. That might be mistaken, as might my
>>     understanding of the whole situation, but that's because there's
>>     little I can find to outline the thinking behind the problem:
>>     Anne van Kesteren is /*not allowed to edit the W3C DOM spec!?!?*/
>>
>>     This despite being employed by a member organization in good
>>     standing, his long service as an even-handed arbiter of technical
>>     disputes, and previous (generally praised) editorship of the DOM
>>     spec.
>>
>>     Indeed, it's safe to say that Anne//is the only editor of the DOM
>>     spec who has poured significant time into the maintenance of the
>>     W3C version of the spec.
>>
>>     I understand -- but can find no discussion in public or member
>>     space, why is that? -- that this comes down to Anne /also
>>     /editing the DOM spec at the WHATWG.
>>
>>     This leads to the situation in which the most competent,
>>     reasonable, invested person in a core web spec is, through your
>>     action,
>
>     Reading subsequent posts on this thread, this appears to be a
>     complication related to the pre-existing W3C Invited Expert
>     agreement, which indeed looks complex.
>
>     It is unclear to me what action I've taken personally to make Anne
>     unable to work on this document.
>
>
> It may not have been your action that created the situation, but only 
> you can undo it, it seems.
>
>     Unless you mean that I've not changed this agreement or not
>     changed the W3C document license.  I am not empowered to changes
>     these agreements unilaterally - although as you know - we are
>     trying hard to gain consensus to liberalize both the W3C General
>     Document License as well as the license for HTML5 extension
>     specifications.
>
>
> If I'm following the document chain correctly, this is the operable 
> paragraph from the Document License 
> <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. However, if additional
>     requirements (documented in the Copyright FAQ
>     <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ>) are satisfied, the
>     right to create modifications or derivatives is sometimes granted
>     by the W3C to individuals complying with those requirements.
>
>
> The FAQ adds restrictions 
> <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620>, summarized by:
>
>     To request permission to create such a work, please inform the W3C
>     of your intention by sending an message in English to
>     site-policy@w3.org <mailto:site-policy@w3.org> and  if provided 
>     the comments email list associated with that document. In your
>     message, state that you agree to the following terms ...
>
>     ...In the annotated version, you must include the following
>     information:
>
>      1. a statement that the resulting display or document is an
>         annotation and the W3C is not responsible for any content not
>         found at the original URL and that any annotations are
>         non-normative.
>      2. a reference to the original document
>
>     This disclosure should be made in a prominent location...It is
>     important that no changes in meaning be made to any part of the
>     W3C document including the Status Section, contributors, or
>     appendices. If comments or annotations are absolutely necessary
>     within the content of the specification, those annotations must be
>     /clearly/ represented as such. (example
>     <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/translation-example.html>)
>
>
> This appears to be an escape hatch which can be used to give Anne 
> permission to work on DOM at WHATWG. Would you consent to it if he asked?

First, if Anne has a request, I would like to hear his request.  I don't 
want to hypothetically guess his request and respond to all possible 
interpretations.

I'd also need to ask legal what the terms mean.  I'm not a lawyer so I 
don't fully understand all the terms.

For example, what you cited above requires the WHAT WG to state that 
their document is a non-normative annotation.  What would that mean?  
What copyright would be associated with the resultant document (W3C 
would say not a pure forking license because then the next person can 
fork it without permission)?  Would WHAT WG even agree to this?


>>      unable to help evolve it. This might not be fatal for the lack
>>     of others doing work in this area at the W3C, but that's where
>>     we're at: blocked on doing substantive discussion of important
>>     new features (currently Promises, soon Streams) among members who
>>     which to use the W3C and functioning WGs to convene technical
>>     work under W3C rules.
>>
>>     This situation is intolerable.
>
>     I agree that it would be desirable for Anne to work on the DOM spec.
>
>>     Looking forward to a response at your earliest convenience.
>>
>>     Regards
>
>

Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 17:46:15 UTC