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

RE: license for submitted TM

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 21:43:02 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

At 06:44 PM 12/15/02 -0800, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:

>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.

Right, this one is pending -- on hold till we finish conversation w/ 
Reagle.  Note that I re-opened issue 49 (about "published"), as a result of 
new input and arguments from Joseph.

>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.

Do you have any opinion about whether we should modify CP5.3?  E.g., 
instead of just requiring WG to publish at least one suitable submission 
license, perhaps a submission license policy -- an outline of terms and 
conditions -- would suffice as well?  I.e., a set of constraints and 
principles, under which individual submission licenses would be derived 
between the WG and submitter?


>-----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 23:41:42 UTC

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