It’s just data

W3C License Poll

The W3C HTML Working Group recently had a preference poll on which license should be used for the HTML specification.  As directed, the W3C PSIG prepared three non-forkable license options.  Additionally, Mozilla provided two forkable license options.

For better or worse, the W3C is a member organization.  I’ve broken out the results by affiliation.

What stands out most to me is that for each of the five licenses presented we have representatives from five W3C member companies that were willing to say that they could not live with that choice.  Only two options, namely Option 3 and MIT, did a slim majority of member organizations not have a single member who could not live with that choice.

For individuals who are not directly associated with a member organization, the results are much clearer: fork-able license are preferred, and among the license choices presented, MIT is the preference.

Does this imply MIT is a likely outcome, or is it just poll data, at this stage? MIT is a wonderful license; we could do a whole lot worse.

Posted by Johan Sundström at

Apparently, the W3C Team counts as an organization.  I’ve updated the page, moving “W3C/MIT” from the second table to the first in the analysis for each question.

Johan: it is just poll data at this stage; input to the W3C Advisory Council which will then make a recommendation to the the W3C Team.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

samruby: Further analysis of the HTML5 License Poll: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2011/05/08/W3C-License-Poll

samruby: Further analysis of the HTML5 License Poll: [link]...

Excerpt from Twitter / samruby at

Add your comment