W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2004

Re: W3C specs reformatted

From: Janet Daly <janet@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:45:40 -0700
Message-ID: <40BFAA14.6060602@w3.org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org, site-policy <site-policy@w3.org>

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> * Janet Daly wrote:
>>Bjoern, since this topic is related to W3C's policies and not to the 
>>structure of the site, I am moving this thread to site-policy. For some 
>>reason, the requestor double posted, and now the thread is more 
>>challenging to track. Please, if you have further questions, drop the cc 
>>to site-comments, and we'll keep it on the public site-policy list.
> Fine with me, except that site-policy is not public but rather team-only
> so I am moving this to www-archive.


>>>I would like to ensure that I fully understand W3C's policies in this
>>>regard, especially since I distribute works under the terms of the IPR
>>>FAQ (though with respect to section 5.6 rather than section 5.9). I
>>>would also like to avoid giving people false advise in a discussion on
>>>such matters.
>>How is it that you redistribute our works?
> Section 5.6 covers translations, so, I've published some translations.

The translations process is pretty well established. But as you know, 
there's more than the IPR FAQ that applies. Document use is also 
relevant. I don't believe there are any contrary informations in 
Document license. Frankly, it's usually a good idea to read more than a 
FAQ - especially when the relevant license is linked right in the lead 
of the answer to the question.

>>W3C reserves the right to evaluate requests. Nothing in the FAQ, nor in 
>>the document license, says that all modifications will be granted based 
>>only on the minimum requirements listed in the FAQ.
> I am afraid this is very unclear from the IPR FAQ. The only place where
> the document states that one is required to request and get explicit
> permission is section 5.6 for documents that are not Technical Reports.

It's going to be much clearer soon.

> My understanding is that W3C gives automatic permission to translate
> Technical Reports and that all you have to do for a translation is what
> the IPR FAQ requires to do. Yet there is no statement that explicit
> permission is not required, that's only something you can infer from it,
> but inferring things from legal documents is dangerous.

I agree that clarity is needed.

> Section 5.8 is very similar to section 5.6, in fact, it explicitly
> states annotated specifications are "covered by a policy much like the
> translation policy". I cannot tell from the document whether W3C gives
> automatic permission for such documents (too). I would infer W3C does.

I'll put that on the list of clarifications needed as well.

> Section 5.9 is again very similar to the preceding sections, the
> requirements are naturally a bit different, but there is nothing that
> suggests substantive difference from the other sections. Given the vague
> language of the preceding sections it seems safe to infer that W3C gives
> automatic permission for such documents. Now it seems that is a false
> assumption.

I think that is a difference in reading. When I read documents such as 
these, I _never_ assume that permission is automatically granted. 
Perhaps it is because I have had to focus in this area more intensively 
than the average person, but there it is. Your feedback on how you might 
interpret this loose language is very helpful.

> Given the rules for translations, the requirements in each of the three
> sections do not at all appear to be minimum requirements but rather
> exclusive. So, if there are differences between these sections, may I
> suggest that these are explicitly mentioned? <strong>You are not
> required to ask for specific permission</strong> and <strong>You must
> ask for specific permission</strong> where applicable would certainly
> be helpful here. Specifically for translations in fact, quite a number
> of people write to w3c-translators asking for permission to translate
> and rarely get a response, so clearer language would be very welcome.

Ok. I'm not responsible for the w3c-translators list, but I will get 
those who own it to be more responsive.

> Especially now that I am no longer sure whether W3C really gives
> automatic permission for translations, but for that I can at least
> cite a number of comments to this effect from W3C staff...

Not all members of the staff are authorized to do so.

> Thanks again!

Sure! Thank you.


World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Janet Daly, Head of Communications
MIT/CSAIL, Building 32-G518
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA 02139

voice: 617.253.5884
fax:   617.258.5999
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2004 18:45:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:31 UTC