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@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
_______________________________________________
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
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
