![W3C](/Icons/w3c_home)
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:
- to reuse excerpts in a variety of contexts (such as software documentation
or test cases), and
- to create derivative specifications, described as follows:
"Forking some or all of the WG deliverables and pursuing an
alternative development path outside the W3C even without the
W3C or the HTML WG ceasing operations."
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:
Should W3C publish HTML 5 under a copyright license that
permits parties outside W3C to create
and publish derivative specifications?
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?
- Have there been proposals to address
the HTML Working Group use cases?
- Does W3C have any other relevant
experience with more permissive licensing?
- Has another standards body or other
organization ever created a derivative specification or profile
of a W3C Recommendation without permission?
- What tools does W3C have to dissuade
others from creating derivative specifications?
- Does a more permissive copyright license
affect the scope of licensing commitments under the W3C Patent
Policy?
- Does the PSIG recommend a particular license
for HTML 5?
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.
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.
Questions? Write Ian Jacobs at
w3t-comm@w3.org.
Copyright © 2010 W3C
® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use, and software licensing rules apply.
Last modified: $Date: 2010/04/02 15:30:50 $ by $Author:
ijacobs $.