Alternatively we might just want to move the two files to site-tools/httpd-docs-build (this one already contains the relevant license) but I haven't enough time to look into this right now in detail.
So, I'm just dumping it here, in the hope someone picks it up ;)
Cheers, Erik
[1] docs/manual/style/w3c/xhtml1-*.dtd
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Cliff Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Reclarifying, part II
David Crossley wrote on Monday, March 29, 2004 10:40 PM:
At Forrest we are not making any changes to the W3C DTDs so we presume that we do not need to include any mention of "changes". Anyway, this should be always be the case because no changes should be made to published DTDs.
I agree that you generally would not want to be making changes to DTDs or XML Schemas (although if you're interested I can give you an example of an exception to this).
However, the point is not whether an Apache project makes changes, but that if the project distributes the DTD they are required to ensure recipients of their distribution are aware of the terms that go with the DTD, which are more than the terms of the Apache License.
I think Brian's short-term suggestion makes sense (below); I just wanted to make sure the board was thinking about this as they discuss future policies.
Cliff
Brian Behlendorf wrote:An excellent edge case to consider. For now I'd note this requirement in
the LICENSE file at the top of any distribution that includes a W3C
schema.
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Cliff Schmidt wrote:OK -- I'm really not trying to cause trouble here, but... ;-) technically, I don't think the terms of the W3C Software License could be considered a subset of the terms of the Apache License. In particular, while the Apache License 2.0 requires prominent notices in modified files, the W3C Software License goes further, requiring notice of the date that changes were made. See http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231.
So, I don't believe a W3C specification schema could be wrapped within a package that is licensed only under Apache. Therefore, if an XML Schema is considered source code, I don't believe this latest proposal gives us a way to include them as part of an Apache distribution.
Please let me know if I'm missing something here.
Thanks, Cliff
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
