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

RE: license for submitted TM

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 18:44:14 -0800
Message-ID: <37DA476A2BC9F64C95379BF66BA26902060750F1@red-msg-09.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Is this about a license under which the materials are published or a
license under which the test materials are being submitted?

I do owe some answers to Joseph Reagle for the 1st one, so I believe
it's still an open issue. 

I agree that the second one is an agreement between a specific submitter
and the W3C and therefore hardly could be made common for all.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 11:11 AM
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Subject: license for submitted TM

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

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

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
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)
publication of TM by W3C. (The proposal for the new TM license is
stalled).  See [2], [3].

So I propose that our resolution of this issue is that it be left up to
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
license.  CP5.3 still would require each WG to specify at least one
acceptable to it.

Does anyone want to revisit *that* requirement?


[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
Received on Sunday, 15 December 2002 21:44:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:29 UTC