Re: [open-web-discuss] new specification that uses OWFa: Facebook's "The Open Graph Protocol". new wiki page to track users of OWFa

6 views
Skip to first unread message

David Recordon

unread,
Apr 22, 2010, 2:41:58 PM4/22/10
to open-web...@googlegroups.com, open-we...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for posting this! One thing I wanted to discuss was coming up
with the right way to apply the license in the style of applying a
Creative Commons license to a page. For now we've placed, "The
specification described on this page is available under the Open Web
Foundation Agreement, Version 0.9. Last updated April 20th, 2010." in
the footer but would be interested in a more concrete recommendation
from the legal committee.

Thanks,
--David


On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Tantek Çelik <tan...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Facebook's "The Open Graph Protocol" is the most recent user/adopter
> of the OWFa:
>
> http://opengraphprotocol.org/
>
>
> I've also created a stub page on the wiki to keep track of
> users/adopters of the OWFa (including The Open Graph Protocol and
> others)
>
> http://wiki.openwebfoundation.org/Users_of_the_agreement
>
> Please add links to more specifications and organizations who are
> using the OWFa. I added a few I found.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tantek
>
> --
> http://tantek.com/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group.
>
> To post to this group, send email to open-web...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com
>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en?hl=en
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Web Foundation Legal" group.
To post to this group, send email to open-we...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-lega...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-legal?hl=en.

DeWitt Clinton

unread,
Apr 22, 2010, 8:16:32 PM4/22/10
to open-web...@googlegroups.com, open-we...@googlegroups.com
[+open-web-legal]

Even single-party use of the OWFa is desirable and should be encouraged -- it means that the single party (typically the primary author) is granting others certain rights to use, even modify, the spec.  This is valuable no matter what.   I'm thrilled that Facebook did this, and we should encourage others to do so as well.

A note for the legal committee -- we should think of ways to lightweight "sign" specs by including the OWFa footer on documents of obvious provenance, such as a facebook-authored spec served from facebook.com.

And now that the spec is out in the open, if further work is intended on it with wider collaboration and more contributors, then that process is something the CLA can be useful for.  But even if not, the single-party OWFa is still good for what we have.

-DeWitt


On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Chris Messina <chris....@gmail.com> wrote:
I hadn't seen this thread before I just posted to the OGP list asking for a signed copy of their agreement, but I would agree that a signature-less agreement doesn't hold much weight or significance in my book.

Most of all because David said that Facebook worked with other companies to develop the spec, and yet failed to produce any kind of document with any signatures.

If this is just Facebook just the OWF agreement as their version of Microsoft's Open Specification Promise, then fine. But I'd like it to be treated as such, and not involve the OWFa, but instead the OWF contributor's license. It's hard me to understand how the OWFa applies when there's only one party signing it. What does that even mean?

Chris


On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:43 PM, David Recordon <reco...@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess I'm more seeing this as a slightly different use case.
Generally the approach of having everyone sign a document and sharing
them has been used when there are a lot of authors and the spec is
more complete. In this case there isn't a separate spec from the
single page website and we don't want to sign an agreement with each
change that is made. The spec also doesn't have a version number yet
separate from the last updated date.

This is similar to a site like http://www.tornadoweb.org/ which says
it is CC licensed in the footer.

Thanks,
--David


On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:35 PM, David Rudin <da...@rudin.us> wrote:
> Take a look at http://wiki.openwebfoundation.org/How_to_use_the_agreement,
> which has some guidance on how to use the agreement and what to put in the
> spec itself.
>
> As for the reference, you might want to think about posting a link to the
> signed agreement.  That way you don't need to worry as much about dating the
> version in the reference since the signed agreement should speak for
> itself.  A pointer to the OWF site is still probably helpful since it will
> provide additional background to those who are interested.
>
> David



--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate, Google

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group.
 
To post to this group, send email to open-web...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en?hl=en
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages