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

Re: proposed Test Materials license

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:11:06 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021125080620.0282d060@rockynet.com>
To: reagle@w3.org
Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

At 01:34 PM 11/22/02 -0500, Joseph Reagle wrote:

>On Friday 15 November 2002 05:15 pm, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>[...] The pillory someone would receive by trying to rip off a document
>or test suite changing it and claiming compliance would actually exceed the
>pain I think lawyers can inflict, though that option is there too! <smile/>

I am becoming convinced that the integrity issue can be handled with 
existing mechanisms.  My dark suspicions probably stem from earlier 
experience -- in another venue with other standards -- as a validator 
provider in a smaller technical community with less self-policing.  But 
even there ... vendors were quick to complain if they thought other vendors 
were bending the rules and etiquettes.

>[...]
> >
> > This is distinct from Kirill's other problem -- corporate policy that
> > prevents donation of test materials without scope-of-use restrictions.
>
>To recapitulate the options:
>
>1. Release under the software license. This permits:
>A. Changes for the purposes of frameworks and language bindings.
>B. Others to make changes to track new versions or use in new contexts
>(e.g., taking a XPath test suite and using it in a XPointer or XSLT, or
>XMLDSIG test suite).
>C.  I consider people trying to abuse or deceive on this note highly
>unlikely and actionable.
>
>2. Release under the Document License. This involves:
>A. If desired, a FAQ could be added which grants permission for the
>necessary changes to use in a framework (like our translation and
>annotation exceptions for Documents).
>
>3. Create a New License:
>A. I'm hesitant to call it a "Test License" because I would expect other
>test materials may continue to want to be released under document/software
>licenses? (I can't think of a better name, but it seems to further
>propagate these "out-dated" names...)
>B. Have it be word-by-word identical to the Document license, except the
>paragraph regarding derivative works in which we grant the permission
>necessary for applying bindings in a framework.
>C. (Optionally address the scope of use issue though I don't understand the
>scenario there yet.)

Kirill has an open action item to provide clarification.


>Given our discussions, perhaps we should present the most tenable options to
>Chairs and get wider feedback/experiences?

I will propose this to QAWG as the way forward,

Thanks,
-Lofton.
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 10:10:16 GMT

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