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

Re: proposed Test Materials license

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:41:54 -0500
To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>, "Karin Rivard" <rivard@MIT.EDU>, "Marija V. Jankovich" <marija@MIT.EDU>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200211141441.54177.reagle@w3.org>

On Thursday 14 November 2002 01:15 am, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
> 1. When the Document License does not work for publishing test
> Materials? An example would be any downloadable test materials package
> that would require modification (even just platform/implementation
> adjustments) in order to be used for a product testing.
> 	An existing example is a W3C DOM test suite, which is published
> under the modified W3C Software License and cannot be published under
> Document License.

Yes, the DOM Test  Suite has been successfully built and distributed under 
the W3C Software License -- as has the XML Test Suite. If necessary, the 
ability to alter the test suite (e.g., build language specific bindings) is 
a reason to choose the Software License, but folks might want to permit 
maximum flexibility (e.g., the XML Test Suite are just instances and don't 
require any modifications for use I don't think.)

> 2. Why the Software License does not work for Test Materials? Using GPL
> compatible licenses like the W3C Software License for test materials
> without restricting the scope of use
> -	limits availability of the published test materials for certain
> vendors
> -	prevents certain potential contributors from submitting test
> materials to the W3C test suite.

This is what I'm trying to understand. How does it limit availability and 
prevent contributions?
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 14:42:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:11 GMT