www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: CC-BY in context
Date Thu, 06 Jun 2013 04:32:30 GMT
Um oh, so an example of a permissive license on a W3C specification might be CC-by.  

Well, yes, this is not the place to deliberate on the wisdom of that.

On the other hand, I don’t see how such a decision is generally any concern of an *implementer*
of the specification (as opposed to a modifier of the specification).  

There is a Category-B-like case though.  A W3C specification might provide a schema, a machine-processable
code.  (This has come up with schemas related to OASIS specifications, since the copyright
on those files is typically one of those “all rights reserved” puppies.)

Sometime those schemas, as data, are employed in the building of software in an ASF Project
(or elsewhere).  There is then the question of their retention in the SVN or their access
as external dependencies (which would be OK for CC-BY whether it is an “A” or not, but
maybe iffy in an “all rights reserved” situation.)  A simple practical example is a validator
that uses the schema as part of its operation.

It is also the case that, for quite practical reasons, one might want to make mechanical use
of a derivative of the schema as provided in conjunction with some specification.  It would
make no sense to contribute customizations “up-stream” because the standard is not impacted,
it serves a practical purpose for an implementation.  A more-sophisticated validator might
employ such a beast using a flavor of the schema that is marked-up in some application-relevant
manner.  I can think of other instances.  Now, for a license-considerate open-source effort,
where can that derivative be stashed and how is it to be identified, license-wise?

I know that’s a hypothetical (although I know of specific cases).  I’m not seeking an
answer.  It is the question that is interesting.

From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 08:43 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: CC-BY in context

Hi Dennis,

The secret issue that Luis Villa and I are discussing that led to his blog post is the CC-BY
license, which has been recommended by some W3C members for use with the new W3C HTML 6 Recommendation.
We’re discussing that issue within W3C, but it certainly isn’t appropriate for me to bring
that discussion here. 

However -- To the extent that Apache or anyone else implements such W3C Recommendations, we
may be depending upon rights granted under CC-BY. 

Is the CC-BY license Category A or not?  If not, why not?


From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 1:55 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: RE: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution


That’s interesting although I think this one may be more relevant to some things that go
on around here:
< http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/01/27/taking-post-open-source-seriously-as-a-statement-about-copyright-law/>.

And thanks for the link to Luis.  If my blog reader ever works again, I’m subscribed [;<).

From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 12:33 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: FW: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution

I promised to send this link to the list: 

I don’t necessarily agree with all of this, but everything Luis writes is worth thinking
seriously about. :-) 

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message