Document License for HTML 5

Advisory Committee Meeting, 21–23 March 2010, Cambridge MA

Tim Berners-Lee, Ian Jacobs, Philippe Le Hégaret, Scott Peterson, Rigo Wenning

Preface

These slides likely to be made public after the AC meeting.
This slide set includes a conclusion based on input from the Membership.
Reasonable arguments have been made on both sides. There is not unanimity about the conclusion.
The expectation is that we will proceed as described unless significant new information is presented at the AC meeting.

AC and AB discussed; sent to PSIG
PSIG discussed; largely against forking; suggested strategic discussion in order
Staff launched survey with FAQ
The FAQ discusses potential consequences of a more open license
Survey results on question "should W3C publish HTML 5 under a license that allows forking?". Of those who responded, approximately 79% answered "no" and 14% answered "yes" (and the rest abstained).

W3C document license should allow reuse of extended excerpts in software documentation, test suites, and other coding scenarios in both commercial and open source software
Fragmentation and forking are generally undesirable
It is preferable to use an existing, familiar license instead of creating a new one

W3C should investigate how the license can return work to the community if W3C ceases operations (cf. the IETF trust)
If there is a license that allows forking, it should also ensure that W3C has the right to reintegrate derivative content into a W3C specification

For HTML 5, use a license that addresses all of the use cases cited by the HTML Working Group except forking.

Copying the prose defining an algorithm, pasting it verbatim or with modifications into source code of a program as comments [...remainder cut]
Extracting parts of a spec and showing the extracts verbatim or with modifications in the user interface of a validator.
Extracting the WebIDL parts of the spec and incorporating them verbatim or with modifications into the source code trees of implementations of the spec.
Copying prose from the spec and pasting it verbatim or with modifications into comments or accompanying documentation of a test case [...remainder cut]
Continuing the development of the WG deliverables in a non-W3C venue if the W3C or the HTML WG cease operations. (This could be accomplished through a trust similar to the IETF trust, not directly through the license.)
Taking WG deliverables in whole or part and repurposing content into a book that is given gratis or sold on paper or as a digital file. (Without modifications, that is already possible today.)
Using extracts from WG deliverables in documentation published on developer.mozilla.org.
Reuse under a familiar license. (We have not yet fully evaluated how to do so.)

We want to meet community needs regarding use of excerpts and related forms of reuse
We want W3C Working Groups to be conducive to broad participation from a wide variety of stakeholders (including open source software and commercial software developers)
We want to maximize consensus (and minimize fragmentation)
Although copyright may not be a very effective tool for preventing fragmentation, we would rather keep a weak tool rather than forego it. Copyright may be more useful in some contexts than in others (e.g., to prevent fragmentation between countries or classes of products)

Legally protects against copying the specification, in its entirety, with modifications.

However:

There are derivative works of some W3C specifications out there, despite our license.
We have not chosen to pursue those who have created derivative works.

See also the W3C IPR FAQ for more information about document usage.

Contributors can already reuse their own contributions in other contexts. (What they can't do under W3C Document License is reuse the contributions of others.)
Anyone can create a superset specification of the copyrighted specification
Anyone can create a specification that includes all or part of the copyrighted specification by reference

Can we define clearly what sorts of derivative works we want to allow and which we don't? Some specification documentation may resemble a forked specification.
Can we come up with a license that meets community needs and that allows the types of derivative works we have in mind? Note that there may be a license more suited to software (e.g., LGPL2.1-compatible or Mozilla Public License) and a license more suited to documentation (e.g., creative commons share alike).
Can we do this while permitting reuse under an existing open source license?

Consensus is not built or enforced through licensing
Consensus is the result of community building and a process designed to ensure that W3C considers all legitimate views and objections, and endeavors to resolve them
W3C plans to do more work to encourage innovation and experimentation