www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: The facts concerning the W3C CC-BY experiment as I understand them
Date Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:47:12 GMT
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