[whatwg] some issues

[Max Romantschuk]

C Williams wrote:
> iv.) Possibly puts you on dubious legal ground.
> 
> ==========
> 
> 3.)"This specification clarifies and extends the semantics put
> forth in [HTML4] for form controls and form submission."
> [1.1. Relationship to HTML]
> "some of the features added in this module only apply to XHTML
> documents"
> [1.2. Relationship to XHTML]
> 
> Can you actually say this, in the legal sense?
> 
> The W3C Document License
> [http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231]
> under which the specifications are released, states:
> "No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C
> documents is granted pursuant to this license."

Modifications and derivatives do not apply here. A derivative work is 
not the same thing as a new work which references an earlier work. 
Referencing W3C's specs is not an issue.


> The W3C Intellectual Rights Notice and Legal Disclaimers
> [http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/ipr-notice-20021231]
> states:
> "No material may be modified, edited or *taken out of context*
> such that its use creates a false or misleading statement or
> impression as to the positions, statements or actions of W3C."
> 
> Sure, there's grey area there, but I'm not *certain*, legally,
> that you're allowed to even purport to extend their specs* in
> any way. Note that I'm talking about the language used, not the
> idea. Which leads to ...

I'm not sure exactly what you're aiming at here, but please elaborate. 
HTML is not owned by the W3C if that is your concern. HTML is a de-facto 
standard, which happens to be closely related to W3C's recommendations.


Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. These are just my own interpretations, 
and I certainly am no expers on international copyright law.

.max


PS. I think C Williams makes many good points, despite the somewhat 
offensive stance of his eralier post ;) I'm sure many of them need to be 
adressed if the WHATWG specs are to be taken seriously.


-- 
Max Romantschuk
http://max.nma.fi/