[occi-wg] OCCI Editor Getting Started Guide (docs/README.txt)
andre at merzky.net
Wed Mar 24 14:25:29 CDT 2010
thanks for that link, very interesting discussion indeed.
Quoting [Sam Johnston] (Mar 23 2010):
> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:09:36 +0100
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] OCCI Editor Getting Started Guide (docs/README.txt)
> From: Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net>
> To: Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net>
> Cc: occi-wg at ogf.org, Steven Newhouse <s.newhouse at omii.ac.uk>,
> Christopher Smith <csmith at platform.com>,
> Richard Hughes-Jones <Richard.Hughes-Jones at dante.org.uk>
> I'm still mostly out of action but thought you'd appreciate this:
> Update on HTML 5 Document License
> Today at the W3C Advisory Committee meeting, we discussed the document
> license for HTML 5. We discussed use cases from the HTML Working
> Group that call for a more open license than the current W3C
> Document License.
> The result of discussion among the Membership is that there is strong
> support for:
> * a license that allows the reuse of excerpts in software, software
> documentation, test suites, and other scenarios;
> * a license (or licenses) that are familiar to the open source
> * processes that encourage innovation and experimentation about Web
> technology, so that work can be easily brought to W3C for
> * making the HTML Working Group a forum that is conducive to
> participation by the community at large;
> * ensuring that the HTML 5 specification remains valuable to the
> entire Web community (see an update from Philippe Le HÃ©garet on
> HTML that he presented to the Membership).
> In short, there is strong support in the Membership (but not unanimity)
> for all of the use cases cited by the HTML Working Group except forking
> the specification. Several W3C Members do feel strongly that the
> document license should allow forking, however.
> People at the meeting agreed that, in any case, copyright is not likely
> to prevent fragmentation. Several points were made:
> * people do not expect copyright to be instrumental to the successful
> deployment of HTML 5. Quality and market relevance will determine
> whether the W3C specification is successful.
> * innovation and experimentation are valued at W3C. Jeff Jaffe, W3C's
> new CEO, has already blogged about the fact that W3C should
> encourage participation from more developers as they are
> significant drivers of innovation.
> * W3C needs to continue to listen closely to the community's views on
> technical direction, including strongobjections. Although it may
> not always be possible to bridge certain cultural divides, W3C must
> continue to encourage the expression of opposing views and treat
> them with respect. For instance, Tim Berners-Lee's blog
> on reinventing HTML discusses how W3C needed to adjust its
> course around HTML based on community input.
> We have work to do to find the right license to meet the stated goals:
> to make it easy for people to reuse W3C specifications in almost all of
> the scenarios people have expressed are important to them.
> We plan to work with the community on the details as we move forward.
> More information can be found in my slides from the meeting. We
> welcome your feedback.
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net>
> Hi Sam, all,
> ready to discuss licensing again? :-)
> here is an update from OGF28: first, we heard rumours that you may
> show up here - this would be great, not in the least so that we can
> discuss the licensing thingie F2F. Usually that is way more
> productive than endless mailing threads like this one, isn't it :)
> Anyway, I just wanted to tell you that we have been discussing the
> issues from the recent email exchanges (and I hope sincerely that
> these are the issues you are in fact concerned about) within the
> So, there was some discussion to review the current IPR text, and to
> clarify those passages which seem, in your reading, to hide the
> fact/intent that using any amount of text from a GFD for
> documentation and any other purpose is legally perfectly fine:
> "...derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
> assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
> and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
> We will be cross-checking with similar texts of other standards
> bodies, in particular including IETF, which seem to recently have
> updated their IPR texts as well, to remove some ambiguities. The
> OGF IPR was originally modeled after IETF's, and, IIRC, was
> basically reproducing the OGF IPR word by word.
> Further we have been discussing the point you raised that the state
> of OGF documents would be frozen in the case of OGF's disappearance.
> If this turns out to be a concern for the community, we will
> consider adding a clause which would release the documents into the
> public domain in the case of OGF's demise - we certainly don't want
> to hold anybody back in continuing to work with OGF documents in
> that case.
> Both of the above changes however need to be evaluated, and need to
> be approved by the OGF board. While we don't think this is a
> problem per se, this will need time to be changed.
> The OGF IPR is designed as it is to fulfil three goals: (a) support
> the production and consumption of standards, (b) ensure that OGF
> documents (i.e. documents released under OGF copyright) went
> through the OGF document process, and (c) secure OGF against legal
> litigations. The board will need to make sure that in particular
> (b) and (c) are not affected by the proposed changes. If this
> sounds overly bureaucratic to you: well, that is the way we work ;-)
> Please let us know if changes along those lines would make you sleep
> better :-D
> FWIW: for the same reasons as above (a-c), we do actually require
> that OGF documents are under full OGF copyright, and it does not
> seem likely that a proposal for dual licensing would find much
> support, if any.
> Looking forward to see you in Munich!
> Best, Andre.
Nothing is ever easy.
More information about the occi-wg