Re: Request for feedback: public specification licensing

On 12.07.2024 03:56, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 8:29 AM Nathan Willis via License-discuss
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> And those factors would need to interact predictably with a specification document that is free to read, implement, and share ... but the specification should not be forked or modified (since that would defeat the purpose: interoperability).
> 
> This is the key problem with your license in my opinion. It replicates
> a traditional assumption in the standards community that copyright
> should be used to prevent people from modifying specifications. I
> think this was rooted in a bygone era not around interoperability
> objectives but rather business models in which certain prominent
> standards organizations used the sale of  copies of standards
> documents as a revenue stream (perhaps some of them still attempt to
> do this).

I second that for practical reasons. Sometime standards stale, and 
nobody is anymore responsible for it. WG dissolves. It happens a lot.

Also I would like to have a WHATWG / HTML5 path: having freedom to fork 
and continue, and ev. get it back.

So I would like more as TeX license: modifications requires change of 
name (and possibly to make clear what it is modified and/or there is 
modification.

ciao
	cate


_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.

License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org