www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: The facts concerning the W3C CC-BY experiment as I understand them
Date Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:22:13 GMT
> I honestly don't recall you objecting to it.  I do recall you proposing it:

No I didn't. Please follow the links in your and my emails. I am not responsible for option
numbering at W3C. What I called Option 3 in my email to the W3C HTML WG that you cited [1]
is copied below for everyone's reference. I still recommend this as the "PSIG License" for
use in the W3C experiment. I have supported that for a long time now.

What you discussed among your colleagues in the HTML WG [2] is an entirely different license
that I definitely object to. I don't know why you wasted your time with that alternative since
PSIG and the W3C Team couldn't identify any real support for it.

No wonder Jim Jagielski (and I) feel like Mugatu in Zoolander: http://www.youtube.com/watchv=llgY3VBwTAo


Thanks, Jim. :-)

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0143.html 
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html#option3 

****************************************************
****** The "Amended" PSIG License that I proposed, then called "Option 3"
****** but which is not the same as "Option 3" on the W3C website

Copyright C 2010 W3CR (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 
<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231> . 

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. The notice is:

"Copyright C 2010 W3CR (MIT, ERCIM, Keio). This software or document
includes material copied from or derived from [title and URI of the W3C
document]."

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:47 AM
To: Legal Discuss; Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: The facts concerning the W3C CC-BY experiment as I understand them

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> I know of nobody at the ASF who has objected to the following license proposal:
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html#option3
>
> To be honest, Sam, I objected to Option 3, and I am a member of ASF.

I honestly don't recall you objecting to it.  I do recall you proposing it:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0143.html

> AIUI, PSIG and the W3C Team concluded that Option 3 was an impractical solution for various
reasons including:
>
> 1. It contains technical words (e.g., "schema, data tables, cascading style sheets..."")
that are by no means entirely consistent with the legal meaning of the term "software".
>
> 2. It requires writers of specifications to identify those portions of the specs that
fit those categories, a burden that is not really useful to the standards community.
>
> 3. Such categorizations would not even be binding on a court of law. What is or is not
copyrightable, and what constitutes an allowable derivative work , are complex matters of
law anyway not dependent entirely upon what some engineer calls it. Why worry about those
subtleties? Let engineers just write specifications and let lawyers wrap the legal magic words
around those specs so that, as W3C promises, everyone can implement them in FOSS software.
>
> 4. There is a better alternative than Option 3, as Rigo suggested earlier in this thread,
that was earnestly debated in PSIG while I was there. Merely remove the last sentence of the
PSIG License cited earlier in this thread: "HOWEVER, the publication of derivative works of
this document for use as a technical specification is expressly prohibited." There is thus
no explicit /limitation/ that would offend the GPL even though the legal effect is the entirely
the same (the W3C Document License prevails!). I'm pleased to say that other lawyers understood
that workaround.
>
> Please don't count me in favor of Option 3.
>
> /Larry
>
> Lawrence Rosen
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
> Office: 707-485-1242
> Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu

- Sam Ruby


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


Mime
View raw message