- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:19:40 -0700
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, w3c-xml-cg@w3.org
- Cc: xml-editor@w3.org, ij@w3.org
At 04:39 PM 9/18/98 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>There are some known bugs[1] in the XML 1.0 spec[2];
>we owe the world an update. I just want to be
>sure the XML CG doesn't forget.
Right; in the 4 months or so since we agreed to do this, I have
collected a few more subtle typos in a mail folder. Oh, and there's
one kinda substantive little hole in the spec on the subject of
multiple NOTATION declarations (not that anyone cares very much).
>Also, there are some licensing issues: I need Tim
>and Michael, who did their work while not covered
>by the W3C Member contract, to execute a release:
...
>http://www.w3.org/TR/Release.html
I agree in principle, except for this contains the language
MIT, INRIA, Keio are hereby permitted to distribute my contribution to
___________________________________
as part of its W3C technical specifications, and to distribute any implementations of those specifications, at no cost to MIT, INRIA, Keio
or its users under the standard W3C royalty-free license.
As I stated before, I flatly refuse to execute this as long as it contains
the silly and vacuous phrase "under the standard W3C royalty-free license"
until there is some indication of what document that is and what it contains.
On a related issue, Dan pointed me at whatever document this mysterious
phrase is alleged to identify, and I (in my non-lawyer capacity) pointed
out what looked to me like Boeing-747 sized holes in the language... did
that get worked on, Dan? -Tim
Received on Friday, 18 September 1998 18:19:13 UTC