Re: Request for feedback: public specification licensing

On 16/7/24 11:35, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> 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).

This is not correct.

IETF in particular has never charged for access to its standards, but 
for at least 15 years has felt the need to put a license in place 
requiring that — outside of IETF processes — only unchanged copies can 
be distributed, or copies translated to other languages that preserve 
the meaning as closely as possible.

It's not a revenue question. The important issue is that all copies of 
an interoperability standard must say the same thing, or 
interoperability itself is defeated.


> 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.

Yes. Permitting forks, but requiring both the use of a separate name and 
clear attribution are within reason for open source licenses. (I've not 
surveyed the existing approved licenses for examples.)

- Roland




_______________________________________________
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