Re: PaySwarm is controlled by this group (was: Re: web-payments.org vs. payswarm.com)

RE: "control of those specs was handed over to this Community Group some
time ago"

Is the "handed over" part explicit and documented?

How I've handled the transfer of works developed for sharing by my firm
(call it XYZ) to an autonomous free/libre/open future under a group of
non-profits (call them UVW) was with a signed document entitled "Transfer
of Project Authority".  It included the following text:
"XYZ conveys the role of "Project Authority" for ABC Project to UVW. This
Transfer of Project Authority includes three elements:
(a) Overall decision-making and representation of ABC Project;
(b) Joint independent copyright title to all written and visual works
developed by XYZ between 2005 and 2012 to describe the ABC Project; and,
(c) Goodwill developed through XYZ's original investment of creative effort
and money between 2005 and 2012 that positioned the ABC Project concept
with PQR, MNO and other stakeholders.

Before any re-use, this text should be reviewed and adapted by your own
legal counsel, taking into account your circumstances. I am not a lawyer.

After the transfer, my firm then competes to work on the project like
anyone else. (The business logic for doing this seems perfectly logical to
some, and perfectly dumb to others.)



-- 
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
http://www.projectmanagementhotel.com/projects/opman-portfolio
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983
LinkedIn (Google short URL): http://goo.gl/Ssp56

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>wrote:

> On 12/16/2013 04:50 PM, Ricardo Varela wrote:
> > The main reason why I think rebranding is needed is because PaySwarm
> > is created and managed by Digital Bazaar Ltd
>
> The last part of this statement is not correct. Digital Bazaar did
> create the PaySwarm specs and much of the software that backs the
> technology. However, control of those specs was handed over to this
> Community Group some time ago. No single company has control over any of
> the specifications worked on by this group (including the PaySwarm
> specifications):
>
> https://web-payments.org/specs/
>
> This Web Payments CG has control over these specs. They're published
> under the W3C Contributor Licensing Agreement (CLA), which means that
> the W3C also has rights to do what they will with the specifications,
> including putting them on a Recommendation track. The W3C CLA patent
> policy applies.
>
> > and not the sole product to be discussed, but just one of the
> > candidates to be there, along with bitcoin's, RTXP and many
> > others...
>
> +1
>
> > Most of which by the way should be opened to W3C by their owning
> > groups in terms compatible with W3C Patent Policy before they can
> > even be considered to move along further in the process, a
> > discussion that is also worth having in the group
>
> All of the specs listed on this groups specs page meet that criteria
> already. I agree that any work that will become Rec track must meet the
> criteria you outline above. It's also important to note that RDFa and
> JSON-LD, which were either created initially in this group, or worked on
> heavily by members of this group, are already W3C Recommendations or
> will become W3C recommendations within the next 30 days.
>
> > I guess it goes without saying that unless we produce specific
> > recommendations regarding protocols and solutions that can then be
> > implemented by a number of companies out there, all of the rest of
> > the discussions here are mostly chats over coffee :)
>
> I completely agree. That said, what you're saying makes it sound like
> none of the specifications we're currently developing fit that criteria?
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Worlds First Web Payments Workshop
> http://www.w3.org/2013/10/payments/
>
>


<http://goo.gl/Ssp56>