License List -- as of 9-11-00

[Philippe Le Hegaret]

It seems that I never received this message and wasn't able to follow up
on it.

[[[
From: John Cowan 
Subject: Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00 
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 07:58:22 -0700 

"Lawrence E. Rosen" wrote:

> Listed below are all the licenses approved by OSI and all the licenses I'm
> aware of that have been submitted to OSI for its approval.  Please let me
> know if there are any changes, additions or deletions to these lists.

The W3C software license was submitted by W3C some time ago, but no response
was received.  Please add it to the list with the following specifications:

Name:  W3C IPR Software Notice
URL: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software-19980720
Contact: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh at w3.org>

(Philippe, if you are not the right person, please send Lawrence the email
of the right person.)

IMHO the W3C license is obviously open source (new BSD style), and should be
blessed ASAP.

-- 
There is / one art                   || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
no more / no less                    || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things                   || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness                 \\ -- Piet Hein
]]]

-- Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss%40opensource.org/msg02310.html
Sat, 30 Sep 2000 23:39:57 GMT

I'm not the right person on that even if this subject come
from time to time on the DOM public mailing lists. The W3C Contact
should be Joseph Reagle <reagle at w3.org> (cc in this message). He submitted a
request
in January 2001 but never got a response [1].

This subject strikes back again today regarding the development of the
DOM Test Suites in a public domain and might prevent us to use SourceForge:

[[[
Philippe Le Hegaret writes:
 > I don't think the W3C license is important when we talk about the bug tracking
 > system. As long as the service is publicly accessible, reliable and don;t
 > constraint
 > use too much, I don't see any reason to not use it. It's up to those who are
 > going
 > to use it a lot to pick one.

  Perhaps not from the W3C's perspective, but for SourceForge, the
*project* must have an OSD license to use the SF facilities -- even if
the facility isn't CVS.
  It is unfortunate that the W3C license is not OSI approved, but
that's not a battle I want to take on.
]]]

-- www-dom-ts at w3.org from June 2001: Re: SV: Minutes in brief and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom-ts/2001Jun/0007.html
Fri, 01 Jun 2001 19:41:31 GMT

I'm wondering if the W3C software license was lost somewhere or rejected for
some unknown reasons. It is our intention to fix the W3C software license
if it doesn't match the requested criteria but we cannot move if we are not
aware of the rejection's reasons.

Regards,
Philippe

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/0017.html
-- 
Philippe Le Hegaret - http://www.w3.org/People/LeHegaret/
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), DOM Activity Lead