W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > September 2013

Re: Comments on 23 September Editor's Draft of Chapter 7

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:05:22 -0500
Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <13DCC28E-423E-41BD-9BB4-400ED69AA4DC@w3.org>
To: "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>

On Sep 26, 2013, at 9:27 PM, "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>>  https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html
>> * 7.5: "A document published as a Working Group Note does not imply
>>   any licensing requirements, unless work is resumed and it is
>>   subsequently published as a W3C Recommendation. " This comes
>>   close to sounding like an IPR rule. Please delete.
> I'd rather keep it there, and clarify that it is the case because of the Patent Policy, not something in the Process Document.

The above text is not always true. Something could move from a Note to an informative Recommendation and have no licensing
obligations. Basically, I think you should avoid any statement that declares when there are or aren't licensing obligations; that's the
job of the patent policy.

Proposed alternative:

   "The W3C Patent Policy describes licensing goals for W3C Recommendations; not Group Notes."


Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                                          +1 718 260 9447
Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 03:05:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:14 UTC