[License-discuss] Request for feedback: public specification licensing

[Giacomo Catenazzi]

On 12.07.2024 03:56, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 8:29 AM Nathan Willis via License-discuss
> <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> 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