W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > September 2019

Re: Continuous Development Process TPAC Slides

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 10:20:36 -0700
Cc: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-id: <0BD8B6BE-BA7D-481A-848B-50403D518901@apple.com>
To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>


> On Sep 5, 2019, at 16:04 , Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> I still don’t understand why getting a Contribution License from WG members fixes anything in the W3C context, where WG members grant a full-spec. license.
> 
> As I understand it, WG members only grant a full spec license at the Rec stage. A contribution license protects implementers of ideas that don’t survive in the final Rec or specs that never reach Rec
> 

Perhaps. The contribution license we ask for from non-WG members is for a license to their IPR that becomes essential as a result of integrating their contribution into the spec that existed at the time of their contribution, i.e. it’s quite narrow. So the scenario is that their contribution didn’t survive all the way to Rec. but someone implemented a pre-Rec version, and they want a license? You’ll note that if other things happened after their contribution, the esential IPR set may change (and of course we don’t have a full-spec. license from the WG members on anything other than the final Rec,).


David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 6 September 2019 17:21:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:52 UTC