- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:46:27 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Sandro, Helpful (I didn't know that tests were separately licensed). It does strongly suggest we (SPARQL-WG) need a LICENSE, and probably a NOTICE file, in each directory. Ideally, each test file would have a one liner to refer to this, and the manifest needs the longer form. If we agree, this can be mechanically add to the test suite. I hope we do not need to put the ~30 line W3C License in each file because that's quite heavy weight for such small files. The LICENSE file would contain the content of: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-license.html (W3C Test Suite Licence) and the NOTICE file is an assertion of copyright """ The files in this directory included material that is (c) 2011 World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics, Keio University) and others. All Rights Reserved. """ This does not define the copyright situation - and I see that the test suite license says "and others" and """ THIS WORK IS PROVIDED BY W3C, MIT, ERCIM, KEIO UNIVERSITY, THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" """ so the answer seems to be that the copyright is retained by the original submitter. This makes sense as copyright transfer is different in different jurisdictions (if it is possible at all). IANAL. This makes sense as copyright transfer is different in different jurisdictions (if it is possible at all). I would like to get a definitive answer or at least one that has some precedence. Andy On 13/12/11 05:32, Sandro Hawke wrote: > Quick answer, on my way to bed. Maybe this helps: > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright.html > > -- Sandro >
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 09:47:08 UTC