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

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 03:29:08 +0000
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <59A39E87EA9F964A836299497B686C3510A4FE47@WABOTH9MSGUSR8D.ITServices.sbc.com>

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.

<bryan> IG members have the same disclosure requirements as any member, and CG members have the same exclusion rights as WG members for any work taken up to REC-track by a WG - whether they join the WG or not. So there is really little difference - in either case there is no IP commitment required, given that disclosure-only (IG) and the right to exclusion (CG) amount to essentially the same thing.

Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 03:30:05 UTC