CC-BY is a more recognized copyright license than other W3C licenses (or parts of licenses). This issue has two parts:
1) Should we replace provision 2 of the CLA [1] with a reference to CC-BY? (Or do something else to achieve the same goal?)
2) For issue #6, should we use CC-BY for groups that publish CG Reports that are not Specifications (rather than the whole CLA), or should we just refer to provision 2 of the CLA?
Note: The CLA and the W3C Patent Policy were designed to be compatible in terms of RF patent licensing commitments. I don't recall that we focused as much on copyright compatibility. For the time being I am not proposing that we revisit copyright consistency (or reuse) across all W3C licenses.
CC-BY is a more recognized copyright license than other W3C licenses (or parts of licenses). This issue has two parts:
1) Should we replace provision 2 of the CLA [1] with a reference to CC-BY? (Or do something else to achieve the same goal?) 2) For issue #6, should we use CC-BY for groups that publish CG Reports that are not Specifications (rather than the whole CLA), or should we just refer to provision 2 of the CLA?
Note: The CLA and the W3C Patent Policy were designed to be compatible in terms of RF patent licensing commitments. I don't recall that we focused as much on copyright compatibility. For the time being I am not proposing that we revisit copyright consistency (or reuse) across all W3C licenses.
[1] https://www.w3.org/community/about/process/cla/