Re: Next Steps for W3C Coremob - Restatement of Options, Task Force Proposal - Last Call from Arthur Barstow on 2013-03-29 (public-coremob@w3.org from March 2013)

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:30:23 -0400
To: "ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com>
CC: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5154EEAF.4040809@nokia.com>

Art said:
> In terms of IP commitment (IG has none) so it is easier for at least the
> Member to participate in IG.
>
Brian said:
> Then you mean I guess compared to a WG. I don't think anyone was discussing CoreMob transitioning to a WG. The barrier for IGs is not lower than for CGs, so in terms of IP commitment requirements that's not an advantage for a IG over a CG.

Please take a look at the Patent Licensing row in Ian's group 
comparison: <http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/compare/> (NB 
IGs vs. CGs).

IMHO, the IP commitment barrier for IGs is lower than CGs because there 
is NO IP commitment required for IG participants.

-Cheers, AB

Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 01:30:55 UTC