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

Thanks Ed and Kerry,

Given this, I will remove the examples entirely from:

- the snapshot;
- the document that is being published on Thursday (so they match)

I will simply comment out the examples in the Editor's draft so that 
they can be reinstated if desired.

I will assume that the OGC is therefore ready and able to publish the 
doc on Thursday - unless I hear to the contrary.

Thanks

Phil.

On 14/12/2015 10:39, Ed Parsons wrote:
> 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.
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Monday, 14 December 2015 11:01:31 UTC