Re: Invited expert and CG Contributor agreements

18.12.2014, 16:15, "Olle Olsson" <olleo@sics.se>:
> 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?

It is a perpetual constraint, per the section on duration and termination:
[[[
Even in the event of termination of the Invited Expert relationship sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.5 and 2.6 will persist.
]]]

cheers

> /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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 13:20:24 UTC