On 1 Nov 2012, at 12:00 AM, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:08:29 +0200, Ian Jacobs <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 31 Oct 2012, at 3:05 PM, Simon Pieters wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:19:27 +0200, Ian Jacobs <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Simon, >>>> >>>> I would like to talk to you about the licensing information in your CG >>>> spec: >>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/quirks-mode/raw-file/tip/Overview.html >>>> >>>> The license information is not consistent with what we ask for here: >>>> http://www.w3.org/community/reports/reqs/ >>> >>> This doesn't say that more than one license is prohibited. If that's what >>> is intended, it would be helpful to state it clearly. >> >> We have a thing in the FAQ about other licenses. The licenses you refer >> would not be compatible at first glance. > > ...since CC0 does not require attribution, right?
I think there's a CC attribution requirement (or can be) but my understanding is that the attribution is back to the contributor and not to the specification (which is the CLA formulation). >> My preference would be that you remove the other license(s) and we find time >> to chat about what you'd like to accomplish, and whether the current >> licenses get you there. > > My plan at this point is to remove the CLA license and move the spec to > quirks.spec.whatwg.org. I want the spec to be usable in any way without > requiring attribution. As you wish. I'm happy to discuss further if you'd like. Ian -- Ian Jacobs ([email protected]) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
