Re: Question about GPL and DFSG Compatibility of a Proposed Amendment to the W3C Document Licence
Walter Landry <email@example.com> wrote:
> Option 1
As noted, the clause
HOWEVER, the publication of derivative works of this document for
use as a technical specification is expressly prohibited.
makes the license incompatible with the DFSG, so I will not spend any
time on any other parts.
> Option 2
> Copyright © 2011 W3C ® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C
> liability and trademark rules apply. The W3C Document License applies
> to this document as a whole; however, to facilitate implementation of
> the technical specifications set forth in this document you may:
> 1. copy and modify, without limitation, any code, pseudo-code,
> schema, data tables, cascading style sheets, interface
> definition language, and header text in this document in source
> code for implementation of the technical specifications, and
> 2. copy and modify reasonable portions of this document for
> inclusion in software such as, for example, in source code
> comments, commit messages, documentation of software, test
> materials, user-interface messages, and supporting materials
> accompanying software, all in accordance with good software
> engineering practices, and
> 3. include reasonable portions of this document in research
> materials and publications.
I would say that this option fails the DFSG because it only allows
copying and modification of "reasonable" amounts. It would also be
incompatible with the GPL, so I do not understand why Eben Moglen
would say that it is compatible.
> Option 3
> Copyright © 2011 W3C® (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. 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
> * Furthermore, all code, pseudo-code, schema, data tables,
> cascading style sheets, and interface definition language is
> licensed under the W3C Software License, LGPL 2.1, and MPL 1.1.
So what if I want to make derivative works that do not facilitate
implementation of the specifications? What if Neal Stephenson writes
a GPL-licensed book that includes the standard but modified by an evil
megacorp for nefarious purposes? If that is allowed, then I have no
problem with this license.
Also, I noticed on the page you referenced the summary
With this as background, the three licenses can be summarized as follows:
* Option 1 Broad reuse in software and software documentation to
implement the specification, with an explicit field of use
* Option 2 Reuse of reasonable portions in software and software
documentation to implement the specification consistent with
good engineering practices, with no field of use restriction
* Option 3 Broad reuse in software and software documentation to
implement the specification, with an implicit field of use
If they believe that, then Option 3 is incompatible with the DFSG and