Re: Patent Disclosure

As Karl points out, this MUST be done before we can publish SpecGL.  So 
please start the process.  We can discuss briefly at Wed telecon.

I myself have two questions:

1.) From pubrules, "A statement about the number of patent disclosures as 
of publication and a link to a public disclosure page (even when zero 
disclosures). See the SMIL 2.0 Patent disclosure page as an example."

Interpretation?  Is it required that we have a response from *every* member 
before publication?  Or only that we have the disclosures document in 
place?  I'm a little concerned that some of the companies' legal 
departments cannot move that fast (esp the larger companies).

2.) Scope of statement.  As I understand it, our minimal requirement for 
SpecGL publication is to have disclosures that affect implementation of the 
specification in question, i.e., SpecGL.  Is this correct?  I.e., our 
initial patent document,

>         http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/08/Disclosure

refers to all deliverables listed in the QA charter.  If some company might 
have some issues/delays about some of the other deliverables on our list, 
but not about SpecGL (the 5th bullet on the deliverables list), then we 
could proceed in two steps?  A statement about SpecGL now, and about the 
full list when companies' "legal" can sort it out?

-Lofton.

At 03:33 PM 8/13/02 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:

>QA WG Members,
>
>in the pub rules we MUST have now a link to the Patent disclosures in the 
>status section of the spec. This document has been prepared and it's 
>available at
>         http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/08/Disclosure
>
>I would like that each member of the QA WG declares, if they have, their 
>patents  as explained in the Disclosure document.
>
>Thank you.
>
>--
>Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
>           http://www.w3.org/QA/
>
>      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
>