W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2004

Re: QAH outline

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:34:47 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040426082734.035a3c50@localhost>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 12:18 PM 4/26/2004 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>Le ven 23/04/2004 ŗ 01:04, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> > >Hmm... I'm unsure... It may better to leave it empty for now, waiting
> > >for the topic to be cleared out - there have subsequent discussions
> > >which make me wonder if the results of the meeting in June is still
> > >relevant. Sorry not to have better references yet...
> >
> > I am opposed to leaving it empty completely.  After a lot of effort, we
> > achieved and published some results.  Those have not been superseded 
> yet by
> > anything visible to the membership (including our audience, the 
> Chairs).  I
> > think "no advice" is worse than some generic advice, like "Software 
> License
> > or Document License, or piecewise application of same to different TS
> > components."
>
>My fear comes from the fact that in these matters, bad advice is worse
>than no advice... As I said, the issues are pretty complex, and it's
>hard to get a firm answer as soon as you deal with legalese. From what I
>can see, as of today, the preferred license for publishing a test suite
>is the Document license ;

IMO, this oversimplifies the problem and ignores some good work and mutual 
understandings that we reached with the ad-hoc task group.  Document 
License (DL) has some appealing features, but doesn't always work for all 
bits of a test suite.  SL might be needed for some parts, in order to apply 
the tests.  Possibly different licenses for different components (core test 
cases, harness/framework, documentation, etc).

That is the recommendation in CR OpsGL (carried forward into QAH):

http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-qaframe-ops-20030922/guidelines-chapter#Ck-proc-define-pub-licenses

Proposal.  Keep the substantive stuff in QAH until it is superseded by 
something better; suppress the references to Joseph's work (since it is 
apparently out of vogue and being redone by his successors).

-Lofton.

>the topics of contributions, copyright
>holding, patent infringements would be good to cover as well.
>
>I'll try to coordinate with the person in charge tomorrow...
>
>Dom
>--
>Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
>W3C/ERCIM
>mailto:dom@w3.org
>
Received on Monday, 26 April 2004 10:35:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:15 GMT