5 ms·

"Although we have asked them to stop doing so, the W3C also republishes some parts of this specification as separate documents."

ChrisSD 9y ago
> Copyright © 2017 WHATWG (Apple, Google, Mozilla, Microsoft). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ > You are free to: > Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format > Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- oblio 9y ago
  I think the point here is not about the legality but more about the ethics of doing so, in this case.
  - ChrisSD 9y ago
    It just amuses me that they're effectively saying that anyone can fork this for any reason... except for the W3C.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      No, they are saying anyone is allowed to fork this for any reason, but we’d really prefer the W3C didn't fork this for the reason that they are, because it's confusing and counterproductive. Whether someone should be permitted to do something is a different issue than whether they should actually do it.
  - scardine 9y ago
    It is debatable if it is unethical given the license but it is definitely a disservice for the community.
- geofft 9y ago
  You can ask someone to stop doing something legal. I'd hate to live in the sort of world where you can't. HN moderators would send the police after you to seize your laptop if you make bad comments. The only way to get your roommate to stop eating your plums would be to charge them with larceny. Every relationship would end with a restraining order, or it wouldn't be over. Failing to turn in a homework assignment on time would lead to a court date. Buying more than ten items in the express lane would get you arrested for fraud. If that isn't the world you want to live in, let's get rid of this idea that just because I have no interest in the government stopping you from doing a thing by threatening violence (and that's all a license is - a statement that the following activities are not copyright infringement), I'm totally fine with you doing the thing.
  - ChrisSD 9y ago
    Sure but they are using the copyright to insist on attribution, which undermines the argument that they are simply against using the law. If they really didn't care they'd use CC0. And in the quoted statement they are not saying the W3C should improve their process for forking WHATWG's work. They are saying the W3C shouldn't fork their work at all. So despite their specifically chosen license (with easy to understand layman's summary) are WHATWG against all forking? Or are they simply against the W3C?
    - currysausage 9y ago
      Most of your points are addressed by Ian in an old email: "In the case of the WHATWG specifications, the licenses allow broad re-use, so that implementors can copy-and-paste text into their comment blocks, so that tutorial writers can copy-and-paste text into their documentation, so that experiments we haven't considered can spring up without inhibition, and so that, if the WHATWG stops being a good steward (like the W3C stopped being a good steward in the early 2000s), the next group of spec editors doesn't have to start from scratch." (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2014Apr/0034.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2014Apr/0034...)
    - geofft 9y ago
      Yes, they do in fact want to use state violence to insist on attribution. They don't want to use state violence to insist on the W3C going away, but they still want the W3C to go away. That seems reasonable to me.
- currysausage 9y ago
  To quote the W3C itself: "Forking a specification imposes high costs, and is therefore not recommended" (http://www.w3.org/2013/09/html-faq http://www.w3.org/2013/09/html-faq) And Hixie/the WHATWG: "It is critically important (not just here but in life at large) to understand the difference between something being _a right_, and something being _right_." (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2014Apr/0034.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2014Apr/0034...)

ChrisSD 9y ago

> Copyright © 2017 WHATWG (Apple, Google, Mozilla, Microsoft). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ > You are free to: > Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format > Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

oblio 9y ago
I think the point here is not about the legality but more about the ethics of doing so, in this case.
- ChrisSD 9y ago
  It just amuses me that they're effectively saying that anyone can fork this for any reason... except for the W3C.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    No, they are saying anyone is allowed to fork this for any reason, but we’d really prefer the W3C didn't fork this for the reason that they are, because it's confusing and counterproductive. Whether someone should be permitted to do something is a different issue than whether they should actually do it.
- scardine 9y ago
  It is debatable if it is unethical given the license but it is definitely a disservice for the community.
geofft 9y ago
You can ask someone to stop doing something legal. I'd hate to live in the sort of world where you can't. HN moderators would send the police after you to seize your laptop if you make bad comments. The only way to get your roommate to stop eating your plums would be to charge them with larceny. Every relationship would end with a restraining order, or it wouldn't be over. Failing to turn in a homework assignment on time would lead to a court date. Buying more than ten items in the express lane would get you arrested for fraud. If that isn't the world you want to live in, let's get rid of this idea that just because I have no interest in the government stopping you from doing a thing by threatening violence (and that's all a license is - a statement that the following activities are not copyright infringement), I'm totally fine with you doing the thing.
- ChrisSD 9y ago
  Sure but they are using the copyright to insist on attribution, which undermines the argument that they are simply against using the law. If they really didn't care they'd use CC0. And in the quoted statement they are not saying the W3C should improve their process for forking WHATWG's work. They are saying the W3C shouldn't fork their work at all. So despite their specifically chosen license (with easy to understand layman's summary) are WHATWG against all forking? Or are they simply against the W3C?
  - currysausage 9y ago
    Most of your points are addressed by Ian in an old email: "In the case of the WHATWG specifications, the licenses allow broad re-use, so that implementors can copy-and-paste text into their comment blocks, so that tutorial writers can copy-and-paste text into their documentation, so that experiments we haven't considered can spring up without inhibition, and so that, if the WHATWG stops being a good steward (like the W3C stopped being a good steward in the early 2000s), the next group of spec editors doesn't have to start from scratch." (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2014Apr/0034.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2014Apr/0034...)
  - geofft 9y ago
    Yes, they do in fact want to use state violence to insist on attribution. They don't want to use state violence to insist on the W3C going away, but they still want the W3C to go away. That seems reasonable to me.
currysausage 9y ago
To quote the W3C itself: "Forking a specification imposes high costs, and is therefore not recommended" (http://www.w3.org/2013/09/html-faq http://www.w3.org/2013/09/html-faq) And Hixie/the WHATWG: "It is critically important (not just here but in life at large) to understand the difference between something being _a right_, and something being _right_." (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2014Apr/0034.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2014Apr/0034...)