- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:46:27 +0100
- To: Boaz Sender <boaz@bocoup.com>
- CC: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Lars Knudsen <larsgk@gmail.com>, Grady Laksmono <glaksmono@zynga.com>, Andrew Baker <andrew_j_baker2@hotmail.com>, "gmthundercat@gmail.com" <gmthundercat@gmail.com>, "public-games@w3.org" <public-games@w3.org>, "scheib@google.com" <scheib@google.com>, "Conceiro Igueregui, Alexander" <alexander.conceiro@tecnalia.com>
On 11/10/2011 07:37 PM, Boaz Sender wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com <mailto:w3c@marcosc.com>> wrote: > > > The games community group will not develop any specifications, and thus, there will not be any Essential Claims under the W3C Contributor License Agreement or Final Specification Agreement. > > I'm not comfortable with the above. The above will still generate ideas that may encroach on the Essential Claims under the W3C Contributor License Agreement. Maybe we need W3C to legal to review, but I'm not sure. > > > Francois, Marie-Claire, PLH, do you have any suggestions here? Something can only become an Essential Claim by being part of a Specification. No specification means no essential claim, so the assertion looks good. Instead of a raw "there will not be", I would have proposed "the group does not anticipate producing material subject to" to avoid having to ask ourselves whether the legal assertion is valid (yes/no questions tend not to have a yes/no answer when legal experts get asked ;)) but the intent is the same and my reply comes in a bit late, so scope is good as-is. Francois.
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 12:46:55 UTC