W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > December 2002

license for submitted TM

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:10:48 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021215113122.03372cb0@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

(With this message, I close this AI...)

A-2002-10-21-3  Lofton  to get concrete proposal for issue 59 for next telecon.
=====

Issue 59:  Should there be a global (W3C-standard) license for submitted 
test materials? (Originator:  Andrew).  [1]

I don't have a proposal for such a license.  I suspect that W3C Legal would 
not be enthusiastic to try to define such a license, that would be 
acceptable to all companies that might submit TM and to all WGs.

I suggest that we close the issue with the answer "No".  We do have 
criteria under which TM are distributed by W3C (freely available, 
...).  And we do have proposals for licenses (and an OpsGL checkpoint) for 
publication of TM by W3C. (The proposal for the new TM license is currently 
stalled).  See [2], [3].

So I propose that our resolution of this issue is that it be left up to the 
WGs or whoever receives the test materials.  They should not (MUST NOT) 
accept TM under terms which prohibit W3C publication under suitable 
licenses and terms.

This resolution would NOT, in itself, affect OpsGL CP5.3, "Define the 
licenses applicable to submitted test materials. [Priority 1]" [4].  The 
resolution only says that we shouldn't attempt to define a W3C-wide global 
license.  CP5.3 still would require each WG to specify at least one license 
acceptable to it.

Does anyone want to revisit *that* requirement?

-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x59
[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x49
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0044.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/11/qaframe-ops-20021111#Ck-proc-define-licenses
Received on Sunday, 15 December 2002 14:09:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:12 GMT