Re: Invited expert agreement

 

Dear all: 

Some brief notes you may take in consideration. 

There is no debate in the rights or license an invited expert should
have in his relation with the Consortium.

 Repo, whether total or partial, does not involve the loss or waiver of
the intellectual rights by the invited expert. 

As I fail to understand and based on my experience or the experience
from colleagues, the present normative (international and national) on
property, rights, remarks that the copyright or license of the result
from the work, is preserved by the person, who holds it, without
implying the non-assignment of these copyrighted work

 This copyright and license question -- as I see -- rises from the fact
that the invited expert will not be subject to the discipline of the
consortium, because he will take part, and will be invited, and that his
mission will have a predefined range in the time. 

I do not see the need of CCO, as I am convinced there is no need for it,
because of the invited expert will be willingly to offer his expertise
and knowledge to the Consortium. 

Invited experts have always the right to cede, for a specified time, and
by mutual agreement between the parties, the rights of which they are
keepers and which emanate from their own work or the company he or she
represents.

The invited experts should and are obliged to maintain and to be in
possession of all the rights that their work generates.

 The invited experts understand the need to cede of their work and
understand the scope of derivative works thereof are generated.

For these reasons explained in this list , I can not see any objection
for an invited expert to give his work and time for the purposes of the
Consortium and for the common good. 

Please consider the above exposed as a single notes or personal
observations, to put light on this debate, and thus help in the
completeness of the same. 

BR 

---

delfin@delfiramirez.info 
http://delfiramirez.info [4]
 skype username: segonquart
twitter:@delfinramirez
common weblog: http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com [5] 
about: Technology Lover & good cook. 
place: Somewhere over Europe. 
My Digital Signature [6] 

On 18/12/2014 11:49, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote: 

> 17.12.2014, 22:57, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>:
> On 12/17/2014 12:32 PM, David Singer wrote: On Dec 16, 2014, at 12:47 , Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: On 12/16/14 2:24 PM, David Singer wrote: [changing the subject as this is a new can of worms] On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:44 , Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: Use case: should I ever become unemployed ... I ... would not be willing to sign the current Invited Experts agreement. I assume the problematic part is this? "The Invited Expert agrees to refrain from creating derivative works that include the Invited Expert's contributions when those derivative works are likely to cause confusion about the status of the W3C work or create risks of non-interoperability with a W3C Recommendation. «Branching» is one example of a non-permissible derivative work."

> I think this is something we are unlikely to enforce. If I own the copyright in my contributions (and I do), I cannot then be constrained in what I do with something I own, reasonably, can I? Jeff is correct: regarding agreeing in advance.

To be explicit here: The invited expert agreement includes you agreeing
to constrain yourself in such away, forever.

> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0089.html [1] As to "unlikely to enforce", I've been burned in the past by an agreement saying one thing and the company on the other saying another, quite publicly, in writing, and on stage. If the W3C is unlikely to enforce this, then it shouldn't be in the agreement. Period.

I disagree. There are requests made that will not be backed up by
serious action but set expectations. That's a normal thing to do, so the
question is whether the policy it reflects is one we want to keep.

>> I agree. A test would be that we should be at least willing to send an admonishing/request-to-desist email; if we wouldn't even do that, then we should drop the statement. I don't think we would, unless the relationship with the IE was already falling apart for other reasons. So I am with you.

[...]

> But since this is the public-w3process mailing list, where many of the subscribers are in favor of such things as escalation paths and the like, I won't ask the policy question,

The policy question is in principle one for the W3C Team to decide,
although it is the sort of policy question I generally suggest they ask
about before taking the decision.

I note that the draft member agreement, which I assume reflects the
member agreements signed although as far as I know they are not public,
does not seem to contain such a restriction, instead using roughly the
same language as the earlier (2002) invited expert agreement.

I also note a reference in the current agreement, dated 2007/06,
suggesting that there is a new agreement at
http://www.w3.org/Legal/2014/08-invited-expert.html [2] that will come
into force on adoption of the August 2014 Process. But the link doesn't
lead to anything. Maybe there is something that was intended to go
there...

> but rather a process question instead: Anybody here have a suggestion for next steps?

I suggest you draft a proposal for a modified IE agreement yourself and
invite comments.

Although I claim there is no grey in my beard - and that funny lighting
makes it seem there may be - I have found that is a more effective way
to move things forward than waiting for someone else to do the drafting.

> To be clear on what I'm looking for: I'm not looking for a new Invited Expert agreement to be in place before the completion of the current holiday season or anything like that. I'm looking for somebody (probably Wendy?) to draft up (and post for public review) a new Invited Expert agreement in 1Q15, for that to be out for a discussion for most likely a minimum of a full 90 days, and then for it to be considered for adoption.

cheers

Chaals

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com [3]

 

Links:
------
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/0089.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/Legal/2014/08-invited-expert.html
[3] http://yandex.com
[4] http://delfiramirez.info/
[5] http://delfiramirez.blogspot.com/
[6] http://delfiramirez.info/public/dr_public_key.asc