On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:41:40 +0200 Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Paul Wise wrote: > > Is there any chance they would use an existing license instead of > > reinventing the legal wheel? > > Many of us are arguing that the W3C should do just that with suggestions > to use MIT, BSD or CC0. These are great suggestions, indeed! Please, please, please, persuade the W3C to adopt well-known and widely adopted Free Software licenses for the standard descriptions! > But they are being stubborn with several > members remaining opposed to the idea of allowing the specification to > be forked, and they came up with their 3 licence options in an attempt > to reach a compromise. This is really sad. > > However, since GPL compatibility is a requirement for the licence, I'm > hoping the W3C can be convinced to give up on these alternatives if it > can be proven that they are not compatible. As I said, I believe the currently proposed options are GPL-incompatible. I hope the final decision will be to adopt a simple and good Free Software license (such as the Expat/MIT). -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpPOzIn7mGYQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature