- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:42:19 +0200
- To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, dschulze@adobe.com, SVG WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>, SVG public list <www-svg@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>, janina@rednote.net
* Michael Cooper wrote: >A correction on what I said about how people could join this proposed >task force. I had said that SVG WG members would not need to join the >PFWG to participate. However, the proposed model is slightly different >than what I was expecting. This would be a joint task force to develop >the specs, and approval of both the SVG and PFWG would be required to >publish. However, the actual publishing group would be the PFWG, and >therefore the work would fall under the PFWG IP policy. This would mean >that people would need to join the PFWG to participate in the task >force, even if they are primarily there to represent SVG. > >Are there any concerns with this approach? It's an extra bit of >bureaucracy for some, but maintains a more crystal-clear patent >commitment, so removes one level of risk from the work. If members of the SVG WG hold relevant "IP" and do not join the PFWG, how would this arrangement help ensure implementations can follow the guide under RF terms? -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 17:44:19 UTC