Re: Merging and improving the Turtle test suite(s)

On 26/02/13 22:48, Peter Ansell wrote:
> On 27 February 2013 07:27, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26/02/13 21:13, David Robillard wrote:
>>>
>>> The Turtle test suite situation is currently a bit of a mess.  There's
>>> the tests-ttl suite, the coverage suite, the old test suite from the
>>> team submission [1], and some additions scattered about various
>>> implementations.  Each of these needs to be run in subtly different
>>> ways.
>>
>>
>> Could you say more?  (I run them all the same way)
>>
>>> There is also serious areas of the new spec that are not covered
>>> at present, and various miscellaneous trivial issues.
>>>
>>> I would like to volunteer to merge the three suites, fix the issues, and
>>> add new tests to cover the missing areas, if it is agreed that merging
>>> them is appropriate (I think a single consistent test suite with good
>>> coverage is at least highly desirable, and probably should be considered
>>> a requirement for standardization)
>>>
>>> In order to do this, the licensing issues of test-ttl/manifest.ttl
>>> brought up by Dave Beckett [2] will need to be resolved,and perhaps
>>>
>>> test-ttl/LICENSE is a problem as well.  Otherwise I see no barriers (and
>>> licensing problems for things like this is silly, really)
>>
>>
>> The LICENSE file is the W3C Software License.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231
>>
>> what's the problem with that?
>>
>> (note that the conformance test suite should be the W3C test suite license
>> which has different provisions)
>
> Andy, the manifest file, which Dave Beckett referred to, still has an
> Apache License,

yes, because it covers copyright and IP issues.  As there are quite a 
lot of tests in my contribution, I thought it safer to be clear.

> and you were the one who put it there according to the
> source control history. [1]

I believe I have acted in good faith and with due care and attention. 
No reason has been presented for an actual problem with making a 
contribution to the Turtle test suite under the Apache License.

The Apache License AL2 is, as far as I know, compatible with the WG 
deciding to use the W3C Test suite license for the product (the combined 
work of the all the files) so it isn't a blocker.

Specifically, changes can be under a different license (W3C software 
license or W3C test suite license or whatever the contributor chooses).

What problems do you see here in using the suite?

> Would you mind changing that to the W3C license?

No problem at all.  I have also already said to the WG I'll make a grant 
to W3C so W3C can relicense it if that works better.

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/contribution-software-license-19980720.html 


(caveat it refer to the old W3C license, not the one of 2002)

I'm waiting for the WG to decide on how to manage the tests.

I can only make changes to files where I have copyright ownership and 
can't decide how W3C licenses the suite as a whole.

David mentioned the LICENSE file which is the W3C software license and 
I'm asking what the issue(s) he is talking about.

 Andy

>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/5bc5dfa6b418/rdf-turtle/tests-ttl/manifest.ttl
>

Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 23:16:37 UTC