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 16:40:51 -0500
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, "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: <200211141640.51970.reagle@w3.org>

On Thursday 14 November 2002 04:06 pm, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> One problem with the Software License is that it places no constraints on
> the types or extent of modifications that may be done.  Users of a
> W3C-distributed Test Suite absolutely should not be allowed to make
> modifications to the substance of the tests.  This is why the
> "Operational Guidelines" recommend the Document License.  However, as
> people have noted, modifications to the framework, harnesses, operating
> interfaces, etc, may be necessary for some kinds of test suites.

If someone did want to modify the tests they would have to document the 
changes. To further this, the trademark restriction was added to preclude 
any misrepresentation that the modified form was in any way sanctioned by 
the W3C. So for instance if we released the W3C FOOBAR Test Suite under the 
W3C Software License, others could:
1. Modify the framework/harness to their context. If they republish they 
have to document the change of course and can not represent it as "the" W3C 
test suite any more.
2. If someone was interested in tracking the errata, or versioning them to 
the next version (if for instance, this wasn't being done by a WG), they 
would be permitted to do so, but again they would have to document the fact 
and not incorrectly represent the test's authenticity and standing with 
respect to the W3C.

I'd hope this would satisfy your concern regarding the standing of the test 
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 16:42:22 UTC

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