On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 at 13:27:48 +0200, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
This would seem to imply a field of use restriction
against anything that is not covered by those 3 exceptions. In
particular, this does not explicitly permit others to fork the
specification.
It seems from the linked pages that one goal of the W3C's current non-Free
document licensing is to prevent third parties from forking (say) the CSS3
spec, making random changes (potentially incompatible ones), and publishing
the result (as "FooCorp CSS 4", perhaps)...
...
It seems particularly perverse to take legal measures to prevent forking when
a reimplemented description of HTML5 is available under a much more
permissive license from WHATWG...
Indeed. These and many other arguments have been raised against the
W3C's futile resistance to spec forking. See for instance, Mozilla's
proposal to use MIT that provides some such rationale.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0696.html
But in the interest of not rehashing all of those arguments again here,
it's probably best to focus on the narrower question of GPL compatibility.
--
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
