What about CGs? re Reminder of Patent Policy for Non-member Contributions

Hi Wendy - it seems like a similar reminder should also be sent to CGs. 

And speaking of CGs and IP, what - if any - expectations are there re a 
CG tracking contributions? For example, can we assume a CG's `contrib` 
list will be used to track the provenance of _all_ contributions to a 
Final CG Spec?

The following document implies some rigor re contribution tracking is 


  * the history of Contributions (as defined under the CLA)mustbe
    archived permanently on the W3C Web site.


With respect to a specific data point, although I am a member of several 
CGs, I think the only one that has published a Final CG Spec is CoreMob 
([CoreMob-2012]). I just checked that CG's contrib list and it is empty 
[contrib]. Is the total absence of contribution tracking "to be 
expected"; should be expect something "better"; will this lead to issues 
if the FS becomes an input for a WG?

-Thanks, AB

[contrib] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob-contrib/>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Reminder of Patent Policy for Non-member Contributions
Resent-Date: 	Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:40:14 +0000
Resent-From: 	<chairs@w3.org>
Date: 	Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:40:05 -0400
From: 	ext Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Organization: 	W3C
To: 	chairs@w3.org <chairs@w3.org>, W3C Team <w3t@w3.org>

Hi W3C Working Group Chairs and Team Contacts,

As your Working Groups explore different ways to engage contributors and
the public in specification development, we wanted to remind you of
policies and good practice to ensure that we can meet W3C's Patent
Policy, with the goal of assuring that W3C recommendations can be
implemented Royalty-Free. This policy applies, for example, to pull
requests on github and comments received through social media.

As we say in the Patent Policy FAQ:
"How should Working Groups handle contributions from non-participants
(e.g., meeting guests or on public lists)?

  A W3C Working Group frequently finds itself in the position of
  receiving reviews and input from other parties who are not
  participants in the Working Group, including:

     Another W3C Working Group;
     A meeting guest, including an observer during the Technical Plenary
     The general public on a mailing list.

  All Participants in a given Working Group have made a commitment to
  the W3C Patent Policy (in particular, the provisions regarding
  licensing obligations), but only for the Recommendations of that
  particular Working Group. In general, other parties have not made the
  same commitment for those same deliverables, although they MAY make
  this commitment if they wish. Similarly, W3C may request that they
  make such a commitment (see instructions for licensing commitments
  from non-W3C Members). This means that the Working Group should
  consider very carefully any contribution from a non-Participant before
  including it in a document intended to become a W3C Recommendation.

  To help manage expectations of meeting guests, attendees of joint
  Working Group meetings, and mailing list subscribers, it is useful to
  remind them when appropriate of the goals of the W3C Patent Policy.

  When a contribution is being considered for actual inclusion in a
  document intended to become a Recommendation, the Chair should ask the
  Contributor to disclose any essential claims, and if there are any,
  the terms under which those claims would be licensed. Lack of a
  response to this request is a red flag.

  In cases where disclosure reveals possible incompatible licensing, the
  Working Group should either steer away from the Contribution, or
  attempt to secure W3C Royalty-Free licensing terms. W3C prefers to
  avoid PAGs where possible."

Please let us know if you have questions.
Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
http://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)

Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 13:16:44 UTC