License change

# musicdenotation at gmail.com (12 years ago)

As for the solution, I would recommend maintaining a version of the ECMAScript standard at WHATWG (which license their specs acceptably), as HTML is maintained both at W3C and WHATWG.

To Ecma International: Release the ECMAScript specification under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 / Open Web Foundation License 1.0

As for the solution, I would recommend maintaining a version of the ECMAScript standard at WHATWG (which license their specs acceptably), as HTML is maintained both at W3C and WHATWG.

To Ecma International: Release the ECMAScript specification under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 / Open Web Foundation License 1.0

# Tab Atkins Jr. (12 years ago)

Would you please stop sending these emails with new subjects, thus completely forking the discussion each time? Just reply to the original email.

(Also, actually respond to the responses you're getting.)

Would you please stop sending these emails with new subjects, thus
completely forking the discussion each time?  Just reply to the
original email.

(Also, actually respond to the responses you're getting.)

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:05 AM,  <musicdenotation at gmail.com> wrote:
> As for the solution, I would recommend maintaining a version of the ECMAScript standard at WHATWG (which license their specs acceptably), as HTML is maintained both at W3C and WHATWG.
>
> To Ecma International: Release the ECMAScript specification under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 / Open Web Foundation License 1.0
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

# Brendan Eich (12 years ago)

New thread, good points. I'll make two more:

es-discuss is not the best place for complaints about the spec license and random suggestions to move standardization to the WHATWG.
It would help us, musicdenotation, if we knew you better. I'm not insisting on a true name but at least some deeds that show contribution to JS, at some level. Otherwise, your whole approach is kind of like a bossy stranger who wants to "get" without any "give". See what I mean?

New thread, good points. I'll make two more:

1. es-discuss is not the best place for complaints about the spec 
license and random suggestions to move standardization to the WHATWG.

2. It would help us, musicdenotation, if we knew you better. I'm not 
insisting on a true name but at least some deeds that show contribution 
to JS, at some level. Otherwise, your whole approach is kind of like a 
bossy stranger who wants to "get" without any "give". See what I mean?

/be
> Tab Atkins Jr. <mailto:jackalmage at gmail.com>
> September 2, 2013 12:27 PM
> Would you please stop sending these emails with new subjects, thus
> completely forking the discussion each time? Just reply to the
> original email.
>
> (Also, actually respond to the responses you're getting.)
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
> musicdenotation at gmail.com <mailto:musicdenotation at gmail.com>
> September 2, 2013 9:05 AM
> As for the solution, I would recommend maintaining a version of the 
> ECMAScript standard at WHATWG (which license their specs acceptably), 
> as HTML is maintained both at W3C and WHATWG.
>
> To Ecma International: Release the ECMAScript specification under 
> Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 / Open Web Foundation License 1.0
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>

# Brian Nguyen (12 years ago)

Has the specification licensing issue been addressed? What is the result?

Has the specification licensing issue been addressed? What is the result?