www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: The facts concerning the W3C CC-BY experiment as I understand
Date Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:14:29 GMT
Thanks :-)

/me notes that one of the things that appealed to me about Foss was that it didn't hesitate
to laugh at its own pretensions.

cheers,
Louis


On 01.Nov.2013, at 11:05, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:

> 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
> 


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


Mime
View raw message