Subject: Submission of W3C Software License for Review
From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:10:35 -0400


This is a resubmission of the W3C License (first submitted January 2000 [1]) 
with your new policy [2].

Please let me know if you have any questions or if this submission is not 
conformant with your policy.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/0017.html
[2] http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html#approval

>    1. Put the license on a web page in HTML form. We will convert it
>       into the same style as the existing approved licenses. You can
>       help us by publishing it in that style yourself to save us the
>       conversion step.

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software-19980720

>    2. Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar to
>       your license. Explain why that license will not suffice for your
>       needs. If your proposed license is derived from a license we have
>       already approved, describe exactly what you have changed. This
>       document is not part of the license; it is solely to help the
>       board understand and review your license.

This license predates many of the approved licenses.
  >cvs log copyright-software.html  
  revision 1.1 date: 1997/09/26 18:18:44;  author: fillault;  state: Exp;

It evolved from the MIT license [3] with a few substantive tweaks to improve 
the communication of the source from which derivations stem, and a clause 
prohibiting the misleading claims of W3C affiliation.

[3] http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html

>    3. Explain how software distributed under your license can be used in
>       conjunction with software distributed under other open source
>       licenses. Which license do you think will take precedence for
>       derivative or combined works? Is there any software license that
>       is entirely incompatible with your proposed license?.

I'm unaware of all of those new licenses -- I appreciate your concern over 
their proliferation. I think perhaps we need a couple  "model contract" 
licenses ... Regardless, our license can obviously be used with any license 
with which its terms don't conflict. The only bilateral confirmation license 
compatibility is with one of the most strictest, the GPL [4], so I expect few 
problems.

[4] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

>    4. Send your proposed license by email to
>       license-approval@opensource.org. Indicate in the email whether you
>       want the license posted to the license-discuss list with your
>       identification or anonymously.

It may be discussed publicly.

>    5. If we find that the license does not conform to the Open Source
>       Definition, we will work with you to resolve the problems.

Please notify me in this case.

>    6. At the same time, we will monitor the license-discuss list and
>       work with you to resolve any problems uncovered in public comment.

Good!

>    7. As part of this process, we may also seek outside legal advice on
>       license issues.

Acknowledged.

>    8. Once we are assured that the license conforms to the Open Source
>       Definition and has received thorough discussion on license-discuss
>       or by other reviewers, and there are no remaining issues that we
>       judge significant, we will notify you that the license has been
>       approved, copy it to our website, and add it to the list below.

I look forward to that.

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3