- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:12:15 +0000
- To: Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>, public-sdw-wg@w3.org, Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org>, "George Percivall (OGC)" <gpercivall@opengeospatial.org>, Simon Cox <simon.cox@csiro.au>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "George Percivall (OGC)" <gpercivall@opengeospatial.org>
- Cc: Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, Stefan Lemme <stefan.lemme@dfki.de>, Denise McKenzie <dmckenzie@opengeospatial.org>
Done. Meaning that: - http://w3c.github.io/sdw/publishing-snapshots/2015-12-17-UseCases/ - http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-sdw-ucr-20151217/ Are identical. The examples and the extra copyright notice that were not included in the PDF in OGC's pending folder are, again, absent. Therefore the only change between the original PDF and the final version of this doc is the addition of the change history, diff, and links to the GH repo. So I think we're done. I need to know no later than during the European Wednesday (i.e. before the WG call) whether there will be any reason not to go ahead with the publication on Thursday. Thanks Phil. On 14/12/2015 11:01, Phil Archer wrote: > 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 12:12:41 UTC