httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Abele <>
Subject License addition for W3C DTDs, was Fwd: Reclarifying, part II
Date Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:36:02 GMT
Following the core of a recent thread on As it seems 
we'll have to include the W3C license to the httpd-2.x trees since 
we're re-distributing two W3C DTDs [1] and their license is a little 
bit more restrictive than ours.

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 

So, I'm just dumping it here, in the hope someone picks it up ;)


[1] docs/manual/style/w3c/xhtml1-*.dtd

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Cliff Schmidt" <>
> 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
>>> 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

View raw message