T.J. Crowder wrote:
These references provides points of confusion, as well as opening
the door for problems exactly like that, which has happened this
week: the editor disagrees with a decision, and makes a
modification to "his" version of the HTML5 spec that generates FUD
regarding HTML5.
Pardon my ignorance, but what issue was that?
I referenced a link in my first email, but a better one arose later in
the day. You can view what's happening, beginning with the following email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0215.html
A second email triggered further discussion, beginning at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0215.html
Shelley
--
T.J. Crowder
Independent Software Consultant
tj / crowder software / com
www.crowdersoftware.com <http://www.crowdersoftware.com>
On 9 June 2010 14:45, Shelley Powers <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Bijan Parsia wrote:
Hi Shelly,
I'm not sure that the legal status of the groups can't be
so easily
dismissed. Not in this particular instance, when we're no
longer sure
who does have a right to lay claim to copyright of HTML5.
My point is solely that the legal status of a group is not
necessary in this case to ground the proposed action nor,
afaict, is it sufficient. It runs the risk of providing an
overbroad rule that then gets only applied in a single case.
Point taken.
It's not necessary because the relevant legal issues do not
turn on the legal status of the WHATWG (e.g., ownership of the
spec text; the WHATWG is not a candidate owner). It's not
sufficient because I presume that even if the WHATWG changed
its legal status (which it could easily do by incorporating
in, say, the US or affiliating with a host organization), that
people would object to the denigrating text (however accurate).
AFAIK, signing the membership agreement does not assign
copyright to the W3C for work done on W3C specs, but only
licenses it:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#holds
So I believe your assertion to copyright ownership is incorrect.
Could very well be, as I said: I'm not a lawyer. But it is an
important issue that has been left unanswered.
It seems that your argument about whether certain classes of
links to the WHATWG specs and space are inappropriate or
confusing are quite independent of the precise organizational
nature of the WHATWG. I.e., they are arguments about
substance, the particular behavior of this particular group,
not form (i.e., that they are not incorporated). I'm unclear
whether you think that the W3C should adopt as a matter of
policy "no parallel specs with any external organization".
That *is* formal, but as we've really only had one case
(though WS-I profiling is an interestingly related case) and
there's ample issues to discuss there, I'd personally prefer
to stick with the core substantive issues. I would object to
introducing new formal constraints along the suggested lines
because I can think of many situations both historical and
prospective where I don't want them in place.
Your point is good.
If I've read correctly elsewhere, the licensing issues associated
with HTML5 are being discussed, so I'll drop that as an argument.
My main concern is removing all references to the WhatWG from the
HTML5 specification, other than a link in the acknowledgment
section. This includes references to the WhatWG version of the
document, to the WhatWG email list, to the WhatWG copyright
statement, to the WhatWG Subversion directory, and to the editor's
own personal little stash of HTML5 "issues".
These references provides points of confusion, as well as opening
the door for problems exactly like that, which has happened this
week: the editor disagrees with a decision, and makes a
modification to "his" version of the HTML5 spec that generates FUD
regarding HTML5.
At a minimum, if these references are moved, and the editor
chooses to degenerate the W3C effort in the future, he can do so,
and all he's doing is undermining his own credibility, and the
credibility of the so-called "member" organizations (Mozilla,
Opera, and Apple) for the WhatWG.
Cheers,
Bijan.
Regards
Shelley
