Le 22/11/2012 18:16, Ms2ger a écrit :
On 11/22/2012 02:01 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
TheXHR Editors would like to publish a new WD of XHR and this is a
Call for Consensus to do so using the following ED (not yet using the
WD template) as the basis
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html>.
Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of
the WD.
If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
to this e-mail by December 29 at the latest.
Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence
will be assumed to mean agreement with the proposal.
I object unless the draft contains a clear pointer to the canonical
spec on whatwg.org.
I'm unfamiliar with the W3C process, so sorry if my question is stupid,
but why would it be necessary? (I assume you're talking about
http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/)
Quoting http://xhr.spec.whatwg.org/
"Editor:
Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl>
CC0 To the extent possible under law, the editor has waived all
copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. In addition,
as of 22 November 2012, the editor has made this specification available
under the Open Web Foundation Agreement Version 1.0, which is available
at http://www.openwebfoundation.org/legal/the-owf-1-0-agreements/owfa-1-0. "
Quoting
http://www.openwebfoundation.org/legal/the-owf-1-0-agreements/owfa-1-0
(emphasis is mine)
"2.1. Copyright Grant. I grant to you a perpetual (for the duration
of the applicable copyright), worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
royalty-free, copyright license, *without any obligation for accounting
to me*, to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
publicly perform, sublicense, distribute, and implement the
Specification to the full extent of my copyright interest in the
Specification. "
This wording makes pretty clear that pointing to the whatwg spec isn't
required or necessary or anything.
It would be pretty hypocritical to put some work under CC0/public
domain/OWFAV1.0 and expect or even demand to be credited. Some licences
(CC-BY as an example) require crediting the original author. I assume a
purposeful choice has been made by Anne and the WHATWG to put the work
under a licence that doesn't have such a requirement.
Choosing a licence applied to some work shows an intention of how one
expects the work to be reused. The intention here is pretty clear and
says "I don't care of being credited".
Choosing a licence is a serious choice with serious implications.
If the WHATWG expects credit, maybe it should consider re-licence its
work (which would be easy given the current licence ;-) ) to a licence
expressing more clearly this intent instead of expecting others to guess
the intent and throwing accusations of plagiarism.
David
