Request license change

# Musical Notation (12 years ago)

This document and possible translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published, and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this section are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, including by removing the copyright notice or references to Ecma International, except as needed for the purpose of developing any document or deliverable produced by Ecma International (in which case the rules applied to copyrights must be followed) or as required to translate it into languages other than English.

The license given above does not allow derivative works other than that which does not change the meaning of the specification (like translations and explanations). So this is NOT a free content license. Why this restriction? I think it does not help anything at all. See the Scheme and Haskell specifications.

The Scheme report license:

We intend this report to belong to the entire Scheme community, and so we grant permission to copy it in whole or in part without fee. In particular, we encourage implementors of Scheme to use this report as a starting point for manuals and other documentation, modifying it as necessary.

If the restriction is to protect the JavaScript/ECMAScript community from incorrect specifications, you can use Haskell report's solution:

The authors and publisher intend this Report to belong to the entire Haskell community, and grant permission to copy and distribute it for any purpose, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety, including this Notice. Modified versions of this Report may also be copied and distributed for any purpose, provided that the mod- ified version is clearly presented as such, and that it does not claim to be a definition of the language Haskell 2010.

However, I think that the restriction comes from the greed of Ecma International. If this is the case, protest them and tell them we need a freely licensed ECMAScript specification!

> This document and possible translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published, and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this section are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, including by removing the copyright notice or references to Ecma International, except as needed for the purpose of developing any document or deliverable produced by Ecma International (in which case the rules applied to copyrights must be followed) or as required to translate it into languages other than English. 
The license given above does not allow derivative works other than that which does not change the meaning of the specification (like translations and explanations). So this is NOT a free content license. Why this restriction? I think it does not help anything at all. See the Scheme and Haskell specifications.

The Scheme report license:

> We intend this report to belong to the entire Scheme community, and so we grant permission to copy it in whole or in part without fee. In particular, we encourage implementors of Scheme to use this report as a starting point for manuals and other documentation, modifying it as necessary. 
If the restriction is to protect the JavaScript/ECMAScript community from incorrect specifications, you can use Haskell report's solution:

> The authors and publisher intend this Report to belong to the entire Haskell community, and grant permission to copy and distribute it for any purpose, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety, including this Notice. Modified versions of this Report may also be copied and distributed for any purpose, provided that the mod- ified version is clearly presented as such, and that it does not claim to be a definition of the language Haskell 2010. 
However, I think that the restriction comes from the greed of Ecma International. If this is the case, protest them and tell them we need a freely licensed ECMAScript specification!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130830/1fbe9c99/attachment.html>

# David Bruant (12 years ago)

What sort of derivative work do you want to do?

Hi,

What sort of derivative work do you want to do?

David

Le 30/08/2013 15:44, Musical Notation a écrit :
>> This document and possible translations of it may be copied and 
>> furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or 
>> otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, 
>> copied, published, and distributed, in whole or in part, without 
>> restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and 
>> this section are included on all such copies and derivative works. 
>> However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, 
>> including by removing the copyright notice or references to Ecma 
>> International, except as needed for the purpose of developing any 
>> document or deliverable produced by Ecma International (in which case 
>> the rules applied to copyrights must be followed) or as required to 
>> translate it into languages other than English. 
> The license given above does not allow derivative works other than 
> that which does not change the meaning of the specification (like 
> translations and explanations). So this is *NOT* a free content 
> license. Why this restriction? I think it does not help anything at 
> all. See the Scheme and Haskell specifications.
>
> The Scheme report license:
>
>> We intend this report to belong to the entire Scheme community, and 
>> so we grant permission to copy it in whole or in part without fee. In 
>> particular, we encourage implementors of Scheme to use this report as 
>> a starting point for manuals and other documentation, modifying it as 
>> necessary. 
> If the restriction is to protect the JavaScript/ECMAScript community 
> from incorrect specifications, you can use Haskell report's solution:
>
>> The authors and publisher intend this Report to belong to the entire 
>> Haskell community, and grant permission to copy and distribute it for 
>> any purpose, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety, 
>> including this Notice. Modified versions of this Report may also be 
>> copied and distributed for any purpose, provided that the mod- ified 
>> version is clearly presented as such, and that it does not claim to 
>> be a definition of the language Haskell 2010. 
> However, I think that the restriction comes from the greed of Ecma 
> International. If this is the case, protest them and tell them we need 
> a freely licensed ECMAScript specification!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130830/93559ad4/attachment.html>

# Brendan Eich (12 years ago)

Musical Notation wrote:

However, I think that the restriction comes from the greed of Ecma International. If this is the case, protest them and tell them we need a freely licensed ECMAScript specification!

I don't think the issue is "greed" -- Ecma doesn't make big bucks off spec licensing or sale of derived works -- or any bucks (or Swiss Francs), as far as I know.

Rather, and we see this in W3C too, standards bodies are living in the past when it comes to worrying about forks, or let's say, worrying about branded leadership of authoritative primary specification source.

A sufficient IPR protocol and patent license, plus good leadership and a decent brand (which is built up by good leadership and not much else, but which can be degraded by many things), combine to make forks a non-issue in the happy, modern open source code culture.

Are standards bodies just slow to learn this, or do they have either or both of poor leadership and not-great brand rep? Far be it from me to say!

Allen has been through licensing discussions with Ecma and may be able to suggest a way forward.

Musical Notation wrote:
> However, I think that the restriction comes from the greed of Ecma 
> International. If this is the case, protest them and tell them we need 
> a freely licensed ECMAScript specification!

I don't think the issue is "greed" -- Ecma doesn't make big bucks off 
spec licensing or sale of derived works -- or any bucks (or Swiss 
Francs), as far as I know.

Rather, and we see this in W3C too, standards bodies are living in the 
past when it comes to worrying about forks, or let's say, worrying about 
branded leadership of authoritative primary specification source.

A sufficient IPR protocol and patent license, plus good leadership and a 
decent brand (which is built up by good leadership and not much else, 
but which can be degraded by many things), combine to make forks a 
non-issue in the happy, modern open source code culture.

Are standards bodies just slow to learn this, or do they have either or 
both of poor leadership and not-great brand rep? Far be it from me to say!

Allen has been through licensing discussions with Ecma and may be able 
to suggest a way forward.

/be