Re: [Fwd: Re: Addition of copyright notice to the UCR doc]

Hi All,

Kerry and I discussed this matter this morning, and to expedite publication
we recommend the removal of the references to the code within the
requirement. If their inclusion is really vital to the understanding of the
requirement we can revisit the decision and "bang legal heads together" for
the next revision of the document.

Regards

Ed


On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 at 08:28 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> For archive
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: Re: Addition of copyright notice to the UCR doc
> From:    "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org>
> Date:    Sat, December 12, 2015 2:05 pm
> To:      "George Percivall" <gpercivall@opengeospatial.org>
> Cc:      "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org>
>          "Scott Simmons" <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
>          "Joshua Lieberman" <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
>          "Simon Cox" <simon.cox@csiro.au>
>          "Linda van den Brink" <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>
>          "Ed Parsons" <eparsons@google.com>
>          "Kerry Taylor" <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org>
>          "SDW WG Public List" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
>          "Stefan Lemme" <stefan.lemme@dfki.de>
>          "Frans Knibbe | Geodan" <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
>          "Alejandro Llaves" <allaves@fi.upm.es>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Friday, December 11, 2015 04:08:09 PM George Percivall wrote:
> > Adding the MIT license would further complicate an already complex
> > Intellectual Property environment for SDW.
>
> With all due respect, but I wouldn't subscribe to any part of the above
> statement.
>
> 1/ The MIT license is public domain with a naming restriction and a
> liability
> limitation. So it is not complex at all.
>
> 2/ It affects only the _examples_ given in the Specification, thus does not
> contribute at all to the "IPR environment" for SDW. The complex IPR
> environment is not even an issue for the Specification (copyright). The
> complex IPR environment is probably to 90% a question of patents. Those are
> not infringed by the Specification, but only by the implementation thereof.
>
> 3/ If OGC is doing PDF specifications, the examples will not be included
> anyway as the affected demos do not run inside PDF. So the OGC
> Specification
> does not even have to include the acknowledgment as Joshua already pointed
> out.
>
> So before going in rounds and creating a need for spec editing and further
> coordination I humbly suggest to just keep the section in the
> acknowledgment
> and to dare keeping the useful demos.
>
>  --
>  Rigo Wenning
>  ERCIM/W3C Legal counsel
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sent from my phone. Please excuse typos.

-- 

*Ed Parsons*
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501
www.edparsons.com @edparsons