Re: Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
Le jeudi 28 avril 2011 à 17:41 +0200, Lachlan Hunt a écrit : However, since GPL compatibility is a requirement for the licence, I'm hoping the W3C can be convinced to give up on these alternatives if it can be proven that they are not compatible. If GPL compatibility is a requirement, they should add an option 4: the GPL. End of trouble. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1304064968.32026.72.camel@pi0307572
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote: Hi, The W3C and the HTML WG are currently negotiating a new copyright licence for the HTML specifications, and I would like to get some clarification about whether or not the proposed licence is compatible with the GPL and the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The proposed licence is Option 3, listed here. http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html#option3 For posterity, I am attaching the complete copy of the three options. In a followup email I will analyze them. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu Option 1 Copyright © 2011 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). W3C liability and trademark rules apply. As a whole, this document may be used according to the terms of the W3C Document License. In addition: * To facilitate implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this document, anyone may prepare and distribute derivative works and portions of this document in software, in supporting materials accompanying software, and in documentation of software, PROVIDED that all such works include the notice below. HOWEVER, the publication of derivative works of this document for use as a technical specification is expressly prohibited. * Furthermore, all code, pseudo-code, schema, data tables, cascading style sheets, and interface definition language is licensed under the W3C Software License, LGPL 2.1, and MPL 1.1. The notice is: Copyright © 2011 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). This software or document includes material copied from or derived from [title and URI of the W3C document]. Option 2 Copyright © 2011 W3C ® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability and trademark rules apply. The W3C Document License applies to this document as a whole; however, to facilitate implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this document you may: 1. copy and modify, without limitation, any code, pseudo-code, schema, data tables, cascading style sheets, interface definition language, and header text in this document in source code for implementation of the technical specifications, and 2. copy and modify reasonable portions of this document for inclusion in software such as, for example, in source code comments, commit messages, documentation of software, test materials, user-interface messages, and supporting materials accompanying software, all in accordance with good software engineering practices, and 3. include reasonable portions of this document in research materials and publications. You may distribute, under any license, the portions used, copied, or modified in accordance with the terms set forth above. Copying, republication, or distribution of any portion of this document must include the following notice: Copyright © 2011 W3C ® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). Includes material copied from or derived from [title and URI of the W3C document]. Option 3 Copyright © 2011 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). W3C liability and trademark rules apply. As a whole, this document may be used according to the terms of the W3C Document License. In addition: * To facilitate implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this document, anyone may prepare and distribute derivative works and portions of this document in software, in supporting materials accompanying software, and in documentation of software, PROVIDED that all such works include the notice below. * Furthermore, all code, pseudo-code, schema, data tables, cascading style sheets, and interface definition language is licensed under the W3C Software License, LGPL 2.1, and MPL 1.1. The notice is: Copyright © 2011 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). This software or document includes material copied from or derived from [title and URI of the W3C document]. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110428.065044.318830237410758434.wal...@geodynamics.org
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu wrote: Option 1 As noted, the clause HOWEVER, the publication of derivative works of this document for use as a technical specification is expressly prohibited. makes the license incompatible with the DFSG, so I will not spend any time on any other parts. Option 2 Copyright © 2011 W3C ® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability and trademark rules apply. The W3C Document License applies to this document as a whole; however, to facilitate implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this document you may: 1. copy and modify, without limitation, any code, pseudo-code, schema, data tables, cascading style sheets, interface definition language, and header text in this document in source code for implementation of the technical specifications, and 2. copy and modify reasonable portions of this document for inclusion in software such as, for example, in source code comments, commit messages, documentation of software, test materials, user-interface messages, and supporting materials accompanying software, all in accordance with good software engineering practices, and 3. include reasonable portions of this document in research materials and publications. I would say that this option fails the DFSG because it only allows copying and modification of reasonable amounts. It would also be incompatible with the GPL, so I do not understand why Eben Moglen would say that it is compatible. Option 3 Copyright © 2011 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). W3C liability and trademark rules apply. As a whole, this document may be used according to the terms of the W3C Document License. In addition: * To facilitate implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this document, anyone may prepare and distribute derivative works and portions of this document in software, in supporting materials accompanying software, and in documentation of software, PROVIDED that all such works include the notice below. * Furthermore, all code, pseudo-code, schema, data tables, cascading style sheets, and interface definition language is licensed under the W3C Software License, LGPL 2.1, and MPL 1.1. So what if I want to make derivative works that do not facilitate implementation of the specifications? What if Neal Stephenson writes a GPL-licensed book that includes the standard but modified by an evil megacorp for nefarious purposes? If that is allowed, then I have no problem with this license. Also, I noticed on the page you referenced the summary Summary With this as background, the three licenses can be summarized as follows: * Option 1 Broad reuse in software and software documentation to implement the specification, with an explicit field of use restriction. * Option 2 Reuse of reasonable portions in software and software documentation to implement the specification consistent with good engineering practices, with no field of use restriction thereafter. * Option 3 Broad reuse in software and software documentation to implement the specification, with an implicit field of use restriction. If they believe that, then Option 3 is incompatible with the DFSG and the GPL. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110428.072728.1952855615795842695.wal...@geodynamics.org
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
On 2011-04-28 16:27, Walter Landry wrote: Walter Landrywlan...@caltech.edu wrote: Option 2 ... you may: 2. copy and modify reasonable portions of this document for inclusion in software ... 3. include reasonable portions of this document in research materials and publications. I would say that this option fails the DFSG because it only allows copying and modification of reasonable amounts. It would also be incompatible with the GPL, so I do not understand why Eben Moglen would say that it is compatible. Good point. Option 3 Copyright © 2011 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). W3C liability and trademark rules apply. As a whole, this document may be used according to the terms of the W3C Document License. In addition: * To facilitate implementation of the technical specifications set forth in this document, anyone may prepare and distribute derivative works and portions of this document in software, in supporting materials accompanying software, and in documentation of software, PROVIDED that all such works include the notice below. * Furthermore, all code, pseudo-code, schema, data tables, cascading style sheets, and interface definition language is licensed under the W3C Software License, LGPL 2.1, and MPL 1.1. So what if I want to make derivative works that do not facilitate implementation of the specifications? What if Neal Stephenson writes a GPL-licensed book that includes the standard but modified by an evil megacorp for nefarious purposes? If that is allowed, then I have no problem with this license. That would be covered by use cases 1 and 10, listed at the bottom of the page [1]. 1. Publishing the full or parts of a specification in a book to be sold. 10. Taking WG deliverables in whole or part and repurposing content into a book that is given gratis or sold on paper or as a digital file. The table in the section How Licenses Meet HTML Working Group Use Cases states for those two use cases, in relation to Option 3: Full: Yes. Portions: Yes, in supporting materials accompanying software, and in documentation of software. I believe this is because the W3C Document licence by itself explicitly allows redistribution without modification and Option 3 gives an exception that allows for portions only under certain conditions relating to software. So, although I am not a lawyer, if my understanding is correct, then I'd say that your hypothetical GPL'd book scenario would probably not be permitted. Also, I noticed on the page you referenced the summary Summary With this as background, the three licenses can be summarized as follows: * Option 1 Broad reuse in software and software documentation to implement the specification, with an explicit field of use restriction. * Option 2 Reuse of reasonable portions in software and software documentation to implement the specification consistent with good engineering practices, with no field of use restriction thereafter. * Option 3 Broad reuse in software and software documentation to implement the specification, with an implicit field of use restriction. If they believe that, then Option 3 is incompatible with the DFSG and the GPL. Thanks. [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html#usecases -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4db97ebf.50...@lachy.id.au
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of reinventing the legal wheel? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktimrbpjczeqehw74hemcd+tkvbt...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
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). RFCs have a similar policy and it presents similar problems http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/ (although recent RFCs use a BSD-style license for code fragemnts, avoiding some of the bad effects of BCP78). I can see why the W3C needs to discourage forks of its standards, and in particular, avoid misrepresentation of modified versions as the original or W3C-approved version, but I don't think copyright is necessarily the right way to achieve this: making it illegal to distribute modified versions seems a much bigger hammer than is necessary. Holding and enforcing a trademark on the W3C name (as W3C indeed does) seems a more appropriate mechanism? There's nothing to stop a vendor embracing-and-extending a W3C standard without making verbatim copies of any of the W3C's spec wording (e.g. each major browser supports a HTML-like markup language consisting of a W3C-HTML subset plus browser extensions), so it's not clear to me that using copyright like this is particularly effective either. 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... S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110428154810.ga10...@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk
Re: Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
Paul Wise wrote: Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of reinventing the legal wheel? Many of us are arguing that the W3C should do just that with suggestions to use MIT, BSD or CC0. But they are being stubborn with several members remaining opposed to the idea of allowing the specification to be forked, and they came up with their 3 licence options in an attempt to reach a compromise. However, since GPL compatibility is a requirement for the licence, I'm hoping the W3C can be convinced to give up on these alternatives if it can be proven that they are not compatible. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4db98ab4.2080...@lachy.id.au
Re: Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 at 17:41:40 +0200, Lachlan Hunt wrote: Paul Wise wrote: Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of reinventing the legal wheel? Many of us are arguing that the W3C should do just that with suggestions to use MIT, BSD or CC0. I'm glad to hear it! It may be worth mentioning that since 2008, the XMPP Software Foundation has used a MIT-based license for its specifications: http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-ipr-policy/ S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110428160657.ga12...@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk
Re: Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
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 debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4db999fa.4030...@lachy.id.au
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote: Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu wrote: Option 1 As noted, the clause HOWEVER, the publication of derivative works of this document for use as a technical specification is expressly prohibited. makes the license incompatible with the DFSG, so I will not spend any time on any other parts. Agreed. Option 2 [...] I would say that this option fails the DFSG because it only allows copying and modification of reasonable amounts. Agreed, again. It would also be incompatible with the GPL, I think it is indeed GPL-incompatible, as you say, but... so I do not understand why Eben Moglen would say that it is compatible. ...as far as I understand, Eben Moglen believes Option *3* to be GPL-compatible (see the message that started this thread). Now we are talking about Option 2. Option 3 [...] So what if I want to make derivative works that do not facilitate implementation of the specifications? It seems that you cannot do that. This seems to indicate that even Option 3 fails to meet the DFSG. It also makes Option 3 GPL-incompatible, I would say. What if Neal Stephenson writes a GPL-licensed book that includes the standard but modified by an evil megacorp for nefarious purposes? I would be really looking forward to reading such a novel! Great example! ;-) [...] * Option 3 Broad reuse in software and software documentation to implement the specification, with an implicit field of use restriction. If they believe that, then Option 3 is incompatible with the DFSG and the GPL. As clarified in other messages of this same thread, the fact is that one of the stated goals is forbidding (incompatible) forks. This is fundamentally in conflict with basic Free Software principles. I think you cannot forbid forks and still meet the DFSG or be GPL-compatible. You can impose some licensing restrictions to forks (as the GPL does), but you cannot forbid a fork, just because it is too different from the original or something like that. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgppPk7OB5qqy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:41:40 +0200 Lachlan Hunt wrote: Paul Wise wrote: Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of reinventing the legal wheel? Many of us are arguing that the W3C should do just that with suggestions to use MIT, BSD or CC0. These are great suggestions, indeed! Please, please, please, persuade the W3C to adopt well-known and widely adopted Free Software licenses for the standard descriptions! But they are being stubborn with several members remaining opposed to the idea of allowing the specification to be forked, and they came up with their 3 licence options in an attempt to reach a compromise. This is really sad. However, since GPL compatibility is a requirement for the licence, I'm hoping the W3C can be convinced to give up on these alternatives if it can be proven that they are not compatible. As I said, I believe the currently proposed options are GPL-incompatible. I hope the final decision will be to adopt a simple and good Free Software license (such as the Expat/MIT). -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpAyvqlMdP0f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote: Option 2 [...] I would say that this option fails the DFSG because it only allows copying and modification of reasonable amounts. Agreed, again. It would also be incompatible with the GPL, I think it is indeed GPL-incompatible, as you say, but... so I do not understand why Eben Moglen would say that it is compatible. ...as far as I understand, Eben Moglen believes Option *3* to be GPL-compatible (see the message that started this thread). Now we are talking about Option 2. Actually, in the referenced web page http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html there is the claim Views within the PSIG differ on how each license satisfies each use cases. The primary sources of disagreement relate to one's view of the following: * the GPL-compatibility of a license. Note: Eben Moglen has stated that he considers Options 2 and 3 to be GPL-compatible. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110428.103336.2267662035371215801.wal...@geodynamics.org
Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:33:36 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote: Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote: [...] ...as far as I understand, Eben Moglen believes Option *3* to be GPL-compatible (see the message that started this thread). Now we are talking about Option 2. Actually, in the referenced web page http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html there is the claim Views within the PSIG differ on how each license satisfies each use cases. The primary sources of disagreement relate to one's view of the following: * the GPL-compatibility of a license. Note: Eben Moglen has stated that he considers Options 2 and 3 to be GPL-compatible. Ouch! :-( I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out! This makes things even more puzzling than before. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp5EWjTADKjo.pgp Description: PGP signature
