- From: Olle Olsson <olleo@sics.se>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:14:29 +0100
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 2014-12-16 20:24, 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 (to be clear: my company seems happy with me, but many companies do periodic "reductions in force" with no apparent rhyme or reason), I would still be interested in working on the URL specification; and would be willing to sign a CLA like the ASF's, but 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.”
Is this a restriction on an Invited Expert only holding while he *is* an
invited expert (which is role of a finite duration) or is it intended to
be a perpetual constraint?
/olle
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Olle Olsson olleo@sics.se Tel: +46 8 633 15 19 Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
[Svenska W3C-kontoret: olleo@w3.org]
SICS [Swedish Institute of Computer Science]
Box 1263
SE - 164 29 Kista
Sweden
------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 13:14:56 UTC