- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:15:47 +0100
- To: Josh Soref <jsoref@blackberry.com>
- CC: Core Mobile <public-coremob@w3.org>
On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Josh Soref wrote: > For something which is more or less an advocacy group, the CG style IPR commitment is a lot easier to sell to our powers that be than the IG/WG commitments. There are no IP commitments in IGs[a]. On an IPR perspective, IGs are easier to sell than CGs. > There are two classes of IP disclosure under the W3 Patent Policy [1]. There's a table of the agreements and policies in the community compare [2] page. Disclosure requirements is a function of being a W3C member, not of joining a particular group[b]. > > The group as pictured above will have a very broad remit and in > > order to make sensible progress on chosen topics we will need > > to make sure there is focus. > > I can assure you that terms like this make the already painful process of joining a WG w/ its large IPR scope infinitely more painful. > > So, while I, in principle, think it's the right scope, I think you should accept that using IG IPR policy instead of CG IPR policy is pretty much a non-starter. Again, there are no IP commitments in IGs. --tobie --- [a]: http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq.html#which-groups [b]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Disclosure
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 10:20:40 UTC