Re: W3C specs reformatted

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.

Ok.

> 
>>>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
http://www.w3.org/
janet@w3.org

Received on Thursday, 3 June 2004 18:45:39 UTC