FAQ Supplement Regarding License for HTML 5 Specifications

Some in the HTML community have suggested that W3C HTML Working Group deliverables (one or more specifications related to HTML 5, abbreviated in this FAQ as "HTML 5") should be available under a more permissive license than the W3C Document License. The HTML Working Group has compiled a list of use cases for a more permissive license, including permitting parties outside W3C:

In March 2009, the Advisory Committee requested that the PSIG provide feedback on the impact of publishing HTML 5 under a more permissive license. While there does seem to be consensus that the HTML 5 license should satisfy the "excerpt" use case, Advisory Board and PSIG discussions since March 2009 show that there is not yet consensus in those groups regarding the derivative specification use case. The PSIG has created this FAQ to collect various perspectives and provide some background information for AC discussion on this question:

In all the discussions, there has been agreement that interoperability is important. Nobody has suggested that W3C encourage the creation of derivative specifications. The issue at hand is whether W3C (and interoperability) are better served by copyright protection or a more permissive license. For more information about PSIG discussion see the minutes of the 29 October 2009 teleconference and the 6 January 2010 teleconference.

Note: Both the PSIG and the Advisory Board have indicated that any move to a more permissive license should be conducted as an experiment, limited initially to HTML 5 if approved.

What are some potential consequences of a more permissive license?

The following are strictly factual observations about the consequences of a license that permits the creation of derivative specifications:

Individual contributions will be reusable by third parties.
W3C's license for HTML 5 will be consistent with the license already being offered by the WhatWG for the same material.

The following statements advocate for a more permissive license:

A more permissive license will encourage participation by those who are most comfortable investing their efforts in contributions under highly permissive licenses. By analogy, open source licenses permit anyone to take the canonical version and go off in their own direction. This potentiality of division fosters a collaborative dynamic of give and take that can help keep a project together (generally considered preferable to fragmentation).
Free/Open Source licenses and practices succeed quite well at protecting Linux and other open source projects from arbitrary and capricious forking. Similarly, W3C should avoid fragmentation by being an effective forum for specification development, and reduce confusion through education, not by forbidding others the freedom to create derivative specifications.
If W3C fails to maintain a specification to the satisfaction of the broader community, the community must have the freedom to create a derivative specification that does meet its needs.

The following statements advocate for retaining the current license with respect to derivative specifications:

Even if imperfect, copyright is a useful tool for dissuading other parties (e.g., powerful national and international constituencies) from creating derivative specifications. When multiple versions of a specification exist, at least during the time prior to the market choosing a de facto favorite, costs and confusion tend to rise. Authors (who are numerous) are required to learn multiple specifications and duplicate effort. Also, because implementations of forked versions would not in general benefit from W3C patent commitments, this might be a particularly costly confusion for implementers; see the FAQ entry on licensing commitments. It should not be easy to disrupt interoperability by creating derivative specifications.
The existing W3C Document License establishes each Recommendation as a stable, global reference point, which, in turn, strengthens the reputation of W3C as a trusted source of information.
Consensus is a core W3C value. Derivative specifications may break the consensus achieved by a Working Group.
Changing the copyright policy creates new uncertainties without solving any material problems. A more permissive license may turn W3C into a less welcoming forum for participants who have relied on existing processes and clarity, or who are not comfortable investing their efforts in contributions under highly permissive licenses.

Note: The above advocacy statements attempt to capture comments made during PSIG discussions. Some PSIG participants disagree with some of the above statements, or believe that for a given statement, the opposite consequence is more likely (for example, see comments from 2 February, comments from 26 January, and others on the PSIG mailing list). This FAQ does not attempt to substantiate the advocacy claims, only to alert readers to points for consideration, and to stimulate discussion.

Have there been proposals to address the HTML Working Group use cases?

Yes. In March 2009, the W3C legal staff proposed an "excerpt license" to address many of the use cases for a more permissive license, notably the use of excerpts in software documentation (see also this email on documentation in software distributions). The proposal was not met with support by the proponents of the full set of use cases. Two reasons cited were: (1) it was "yet another license" in a field where there are already a significant number of licenses, and more importantly (2) it did not satisfy the derivative specification use case.

Does W3C have any other relevant experience with more permissive licensing?

Yes, but not for specifications.

The W3C Software License allows the creation of derivative works (and is in the list of licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative).
W3C has two licenses for W3C test suites:
- Under the 3-clause BSD License, tests can be copied, altered, and integrated into software development tools, bugtracking tools, etc. This license allows developers, commercial vendors, and open source projects to copy tests and alter them as they wish to test and improve their software. However, if changes are made, the derivative work must not be distributed with W3C logos, unless W3C gives explicit permission.
- Tests published under this license can be copied and used for any purpose, but no modifications are permitted.

Note: There are differing views on whether the licensing needs for open source and the licensing needs for open standards are the same.

Has another standards body or other organization ever created derivatives specifications or profiles of a W3C Recommendation without permission?

Yes, including:

ISO: "ISO HTML" (based on HTML 4), ISO XML
Consumer Electronics Association: CE-HTML
IPTV: Profiles of various specifications
OMA: "MMS profile of SMIL"
Daisy Consortium: Daisy Standard (profile of SMIL)
MPEG: Laser (which incorporates some of SVG)
Governments have been interested in putting specifications through national standards processes, translated, and possibly with modifications.

What tools does W3C have to dissuade others from creating derivative specifications?

Tools include:

Copyright: The existing W3C Document License does not permit creation of derivative specifications.
Trademark: The W3C trademark may provide legal recourse in some situations where a use of the W3C's mark implies an endorsement that the W3C has not given of a derivative specification.
Reputation: W3C has established itself as an effective, neutral forum where organizations and individuals feel they can get work done on core standards; some suggest that this reputation will prevent fragmentation of HTML 5 even if W3C publishes it under a more permissive license.

Does a more permissive copyright license affect the scope of patent licensing commitments under the W3C Patent Policy?

No. W3C Working Group patent licensing commitments only extend to implementations of W3C Recommendations. A derivative specification does not benefit from W3C licensing commitments. See also the Patent Policy FAQ question on superset specifications.

Does the PSIG recommend a particular license for HTML 5?

No. While the PSIG has discussed different licenses (e.g., MIT, Creative Commons "by", Apache 2.0, and a modified W3C Document License), the PSIG has refrained from discussing licenses in detail.

PSIG Co-Chair Scott Peterson did initiate a discussion about license characteristics if W3C chooses a more permissive license for HTML 5. Discussion did not produce consensus about a set of characteristics. Indeed, the PSIG has consistently indicated that more clarity about W3C's goals is necessary in order to create or choose an appropriate license.