W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Copyright of test materials

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:28:56 +0000
Message-ID: <4F0C6748.50007@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org


On 03/01/12 12:14, Axel Polleres wrote:
>
>> It does strongly suggest we (SPARQL-WG) need a LICENSE, and probably a
>> NOTICE file, in each directory.
>
>
> Is this something we should put on the agenda in one of the coming conf. calls? (If we need that we at least need to action someone to draft the notice and put it in each directory, right?

Yes, we should.

I think we need a formal statement from W3C on what the minimum 
requirements are as well.  At some level, we don't have a completely 
free choice here.

FWIW: For Jena, we put LICENSE files and also headers in manifests but 
did not add a header to every file.  The argument that adding a 15 line 
header to a 2 line file was acceptable.

But here I think we need NOTICE as there are required obligations on 
anyone redistributing the tests (e.g. in a system test suite).  The W3C 
test suite license has an important clause stopping changes to the tests 
for obvious reasons.

The DAWG tests are under the old regime which is the W3C Software 
license.  It has no obligations to pass on.

	Andy

In Apache and, I believe, more generally in open source,

LICENSE is to the person picking it up.
NOTICE files contains information that must be passed on.
   This should be minimal.

>
> Axel
>
> On 13 Dec 2011, at 10:46, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>> Sandro,
>>
>> Helpful (I didn't know that tests were separately licensed).
>>
>> It does strongly suggest we (SPARQL-WG) need a LICENSE, and probably a
>> NOTICE file, in each directory.  Ideally, each test file would have a
>> one liner to refer to this, and the manifest needs the longer form.
>>
>> If we agree, this can be mechanically add to the test suite.
>>
>> I hope we do not need to put the ~30 line W3C License in each file
>> because that's quite heavy weight for such small files.
>>
>> The LICENSE file would contain the content of:
>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-license.html
>> (W3C Test Suite Licence)
>>
>> and the NOTICE file is an assertion of copyright
>>
>> """
>> The files in this directory included material that is
>> (c) 2011 World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts Institute of
>> Technology, European Research Consortium for Informatics and
>> Mathematics, Keio University) and others. All Rights Reserved.
>> """
>>
>> This does not define the copyright situation - and I see that the test
>> suite license says "and others" and
>> """
>> THIS WORK IS PROVIDED BY W3C, MIT, ERCIM, KEIO UNIVERSITY, THE COPYRIGHT
>> HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
>> """
>> so the answer seems to be that the copyright is retained by the original
>> submitter.  This makes sense as copyright transfer is different in
>> different jurisdictions (if it is possible at all).
>>
>> IANAL.
>>
>> This makes sense as copyright transfer is different in different
>> jurisdictions (if it is possible at all).
>>
>> I would like to get a definitive answer or at least one that has some
>> precedence.
>>
>>          Andy
>>
>>
>> On 13/12/11 05:32, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> Quick answer, on my way to bed.  Maybe this helps:
>>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright.html
>>>
>>>       -- Sandro
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 16:29:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:47 GMT