Why did the W3C, which is part of MIT, a supposedly respected academic institution, take my name off the RSS 2.0 spec? They should explain this, fix it, and probably apologize.
Why did the W3C, which is part of MIT, a supposedly respected academic institution, take my name off the RSS 2.0 spec? They should explain this, fix it, and probably apologize.
yes i heard that. i still think you have to respect creative commons attribution licenses. that was one of the first such licensed documents.
if you work at the w3c please ask them to just point to the spec. that's what would be weblike and respectful.
https://cyber.harvard.edu/rss/rss.html
scroll to the bottom to see authorship credits and the cc license.
@davew I do not work at the W3C.
Maybe @koalie can help.
BTW: A relaunch of the website is scheduled for tomorrow:
https://status.w3.org/incidents/t7dg7v8kjh20
I am a former member of W3C, I was also a fellow at Berkman when that doc was published. That is my writing you're hosting on the W3C site, it's obvious, and my name and copyright have been removed. I'm handling this according to the process outlined by the CC (link below). I don't want to get drawn into your relationship with the group you mentioned. ;-)
Please just fix this and let me get back to my work on making the web work better. Thanks.
The CC licenses are designed to make sharing simple and place minimal requirements on reusers who want to be able to use creative works. However, sometimes reusers still misuse CC-licensed works, either intentionally or by mistake, and as a licensor, there are several things you can do about it. Before you take action: Before you…
I've outlined the choices here.
https://github.com/w3c/feedvalidator/issues/106#issuecomment-1600820709
Please can we fix this *now* and get back to making the web work better. This is so humiliating.