www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: The facts concerning the W3C CC-BY experiment as I understand them
Date Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:56:59 GMT
I'm sorry, but this has gotten to the point where I feel like Mugatu in
Zoolander:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llgY3VBwTAo


On Oct 31, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> 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


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


Mime
View raw message