www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject RE: The facts concerning the W3C CC-BY experiment as I understand
Date Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:05:23 GMT
 them
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Oh boy I needed a laugh in all this nonsense.

I vote that at the next ApacheCon we get all Members on stage and
perform this part. Then we can roll the video out at times like this.

Sent from my Windows Phone From: Jim Jagielski
Sent: =E2=80=8E10/=E2=80=8E31/=E2=80=8E2013 10:59
To: legal-discuss@apache.org Discuss
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: The facts concerning the W3C CC-BY experiment as I
understand them
I'm sorry, but this has gotten to the point where I feel like Mugatu in
Zoolander:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DllgY3VBwTAo


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> wro=
te:
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> I know of nobody at the ASF who has objected to the following license p=
roposal:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html#option3
>>=20
>> To be honest, Sam, I objected to Option 3, and I am a member of ASF.
>=20
> I honestly don't recall you objecting to it.  I do recall you proposing i=
t:
>=20
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0143.html
>=20
>> AIUI, PSIG and the W3C Team concluded that Option 3 was an impractical s=
olution for various reasons including:
>>=20
>> 1. It contains technical words (e.g., "schema, data tables, cascading st=
yle sheets..."") that are by no means entirely consistent with the legal me=
aning of the term "software".
>>=20
>> 2. It requires writers of specifications to identify those portions of t=
he specs that fit those categories, a burden that is not really useful to t=
he standards community.
>>=20
>> 3. Such categorizations would not even be binding on a court of law. Wha=
t is or is not copyrightable, and what constitutes an allowable derivative =
work , are complex matters of law anyway not dependent entirely upon what s=
ome engineer calls it. Why worry about those subtleties? Let engineers just=
 write specifications and let lawyers wrap the legal magic words around tho=
se specs so that, as W3C promises, everyone can implement them in FOSS soft=
ware.
>>=20
>> 4. There is a better alternative than Option 3, as Rigo suggested earlie=
r in this thread, that was earnestly debated in PSIG while I was there. Mer=
ely remove the last sentence of the PSIG License cited earlier in this thre=
ad: "HOWEVER, the publication of derivative works of this document for use =
as a technical specification is expressly prohibited." There is thus no exp=
licit /limitation/ that would offend the GPL even though the legal effect i=
s the entirely the same (the W3C Document License prevails!). I'm pleased t=
o say that other lawyers understood that workaround.
>>=20
>> Please don't count me in favor of Option 3.
>>=20
>> /Larry
>>=20
>> 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
>=20
> - Sam Ruby
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

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


Mime
View raw message