Re: Request Re Editing Charter

Since I was thinking about ontologies, isn't copyright more relevant?
Actually, the kind of situation I was thinking of is if the BG publishes an
ontology to the public and then hands it over to an organization that
provides its products only to members -- is that OK?  I guess so.  I would
think that the original would be public, the modifications would come under
whatever legal landscape the receiving org has.  Is that sort of right?  Is
this relevant for the charter?

As an editing matter -- I tried to indent the section that I quoted from
the FAQ with ":", but it made a mess.  I also tried <blockquote> but that
destroyed all the formatting inside, which I should have expected.  Is
there some way to indent an entire section?

I know it's kind of "not kosher" to copy a section of the FAQ rather than
pointing to it, but in this case it seemed to me that it answers REALLY
frequent questions.  You will note that I also put in some informational
stuff about what makes BG's different, like fees and the confidentiality of
discussions.  Trying to be helpful, as I said in the last section.  (We'll
see if that survives those that prefer a more, shall we say, formal style.
My documents always tend to the chatty).

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On 6 Dec 2011, at 5:03 PM, Roger Cutler wrote:
>
> > Right.  I've been putting some more stuff in, including a section in
> which I say, "@@@ ... I have no idea ...@@@.  In other words, I started a
> sentence and I had no idea what the answer was.  You might want to look at
> that one, Ian.
>
> You wrote in the charter under deliverables:
>
>  "Ontologies - public once completed. Possibly contributed to a different
> organization for further maintenance and updates, in which case the @@@ ...
> I have no idea what would be public and what the receiving org would
> control @@@."
>
> Short answer regarding what the BG licenses do:
>
>  * COPYRIGHT: The contributor agreement includes a permissive copyright.
> Downstream parties may reuse text and create derivative works.
>  * PATENTS: Patent commitments only apply to the BG's specifications and
> whatever moves to the W3C Recommendation Track.
>
> Therefore, if people develop a derivative work in another organization and
> they want patent commitments from people (who were in the BG) they need to
> get those separately.
>
> Does that help?
>
> Ian
>
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 6 Dec 2011, at 4:26 PM, Roger Cutler wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not clear what your initial comment about the history is intended
> for.  Do you want it explicitly referenced in the charter?  Or are you just
> pointing it out to me?  I know it's there, but to be honest I find it
> difficult to navigate the links in the history and understand what I'm
> seeing.  No doubt my skills will improve.
> >
> > I was pointing it out to you and others. You mentioned history in your
> email but (1) it was further down and (2) no URI. So I wanted to give the
> URI for all to check it out.
> >
> > I agree that reading diffs is not always fun and so it's friendly to
> summarize changes.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 6 Dec 2011, at 2:59 PM, Roger Cutler wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just to help me keep track of what's going on and to avoid getting
> into an unintentional do-undo back and forth -- if you edit the draft
> charter could you please email me and give me a hint what you did?
> > >
> > > Hi Roger,
> > >
> > > I want to point out up top (you mention it below) the editing history:
> > >
> http://www.w3.org/community/oilgaschem/wiki/index.php?title=Oil,_Gas_and_Chemicals_Business_Group_Charter&action=history
> > >
> > > > Ian -- I think that you took out the voting and patent sections
> because there are no requirements, right?
> > >
> > > Right:
> > >
> > > 1) The proc doc voting requirements don't apply to BGs.
> > > 2) The patent requirements are covered by the CLA and FSA; you could
> link to them but I thought it was unnecessary.
> > >
> > > > It does seem to me, however, that it might be a good idea to discuss
> the IP framework for Community and Business Groups anyway, as an
> informational thing.
> > >
> > > No problem with that.
> > >
> > > > I have in mind pointing to the IP page for Community groups and
> perhaps including some "user friendly" approximate discussion along the
> lines that you once sent me.  Sound OK?
> > >
> > > I would avoid paraphrasing the policy. You could just say something
> vanilla like "Contributions are made under Community and Business Group
> agreements" with a link to the agreements.
> > >
> > > [Meanwhile, I am working on a summary of the policy (not yet ready).]
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Jennifer -- I find the history tracking of the Wiki confusing and I
> can't figure out what you did.  Not much, as far as I can tell -- unless I
> am confusing what you did with what Ian did.  Did you sort of complete what
> he started?
> > > >
> > > > I am not trying to discourage anyone from adding content or
> modifying.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> > > Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> > Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
> >
> >
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
>
>