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

Re: QAH review: licensing and branding

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:31:39 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040630092905.035202c0@localhost>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Dom,

Thanks for the review.  I'll try to have a careful look-think in the next 
week or so.  If any issues, we can discuss at the next QAWG telecon.

Cheers,
-Lofton.

At 11:38 AM 6/30/2004 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>As per my F2F AI, here is my review of section 4 of the latest QAH
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qa-handbook-20040510/#IANAL
>(I won't mention the changes that we already agreed to make wrt "IPR")
>
>"GP: As early as possible, get WG consensus and define acceptable
>license terms for submission of test materials'."
> From what I understand, this is not really needed; from what I've been
>told:
>- Members contribute to a test suite and have a joint copyright on it
>through the Member agreement
>- Invited experts, through the Collaborator agreement
>- Staff contacts, through their contracts
>
>If the WG wants to accept contribution from the public, it should use
>the contribution form specifically crafted for that:
>http://www.w3.org/2003/12/tests-tf/draft-grant-document-license
>(note that this relies on having the Test cases published under the doc
>license, see below).
>
>The question of patents in submitted test cases is covered by
>http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq.html#testcases
>
>So, in short, I think the points I'm making above are worth documenting
>in the QAH in lieu of the current good practice, but I'm not sure there
>is anything to be kept as a good practice per se.
>
>"As soon as the nature of the Working Group's test materials becomes
>clear, get consensus and define license terms for publication of the
>test materials."
>The current idea inside W3C is that the document license should be the
>default for the test cases themselves; I'm not sure how we should word
>that, but I think it would be worth putting up the Document license as
>the thing to do, and warn that using any other type of license may take
>a long time to get agreement, and should be considered all the more
>early.
>(note that what I'm saying only apply to test cases as far as I
>understand, which means that our note with regard to different licenses
>for different parts of the test suite still makes sense)
>
>Dom
>--
>Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
>W3C/ERCIM
>mailto:dom@w3.org
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2004 11:31:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:16 GMT