W3C also has a Github community, but older standards like DDR are not mirrored there any more. Almost never do these have a LICENCE file, where it does, it is a pointer: https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/blob/master/LICENSE
So I suggest to amend the NOTICE, will send a separate thread to vote on it, Werner On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the clarification. > > I'll think of an amended NOTICE file, though I feel we won't need a giant > amount of explaining there. > Look at one of W3C's most prestigious outputs (just up to date a few > months ago) > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ > > or more importantly the latest DOM (as of 2008 pretty much at the same > time as DDR Simple) > http://www.w3.org/TR/ElementTraversal/ > they all look exactly the same. And DOM Element Traversal contains a Java > Binding just like DDR Simple which is part of the JDK. No "Software > License" mentioned there either, that seems to have been practiced only in > earlier specs prior to 2005. > > See http://www.w3.org/TR for a list of all W3C Recommendations. > > WDYT? > > Werner > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > ...Does "I don't care" mean, you would not vote or vote "N" on it, is >> your >> > vote here based on the notice text being sufficient from Apache's legal >> > understanding?... >> >> Any PMC vote needs three +1s to be valid. >> >> I will gladly cast my +1 if you suggest a notice text that makes it >> possible for DeviceMap to release code that depends on the W3C APIs. >> >> By "I don't care" I mean I'm not interested in using those APIs, but >> I'm not opposed to someone else implementing else for DeviceMap to >> release. >> >> -Bertrand >> > >
