[whatwg] some issues
max at provico.fi
Mon Jul 5 04:14:47 PDT 2004
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
> [1.2. Relationship to XHTML]
> Can you actually say this, in the legal sense?
> The W3C Document License
> 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
> "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.
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.
More information about the whatwg