W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Next Steps for W3C Coremob

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:15:47 +0100
To: Josh Soref <jsoref@blackberry.com>
CC: Core Mobile <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4E3CE30834DF42BC8A5A44E5AB5BFD9A@fb.com>
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Josh Soref wrote:
> For something which is more or less an advocacy group, the CG style IPR commitment is a lot easier to sell to our powers that be than the IG/WG commitments.
There are no IP commitments in IGs[a]. On an IPR perspective, IGs are easier to sell than CGs.
> There are two classes of IP disclosure under the W3 Patent Policy [1]. There's a table of the agreements and policies in the community compare [2] page.

Disclosure requirements is a function of being a W3C member, not of joining a particular group[b]. 
> > The group as pictured above will have a very broad remit and in
> > order to make sensible progress on chosen topics we will need
> > to make sure there is focus.
> 
> I can assure you that terms like this make the already painful process of joining a WG w/ its large IPR scope infinitely more painful.
> 
> So, while I, in principle, think it's the right scope, I think you should accept that using IG IPR policy instead of CG IPR policy is pretty much a non-starter.
Again, there are no IP commitments in IGs.


--tobie
---
[a]: http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq.html#which-groups
[b]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Disclosure
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 10:20:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 April 2013 17:36:47 UTC