W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > December 2002

submission license re-write (was Re: Monday (16 Dec) QAWG telecon agenda)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 13:59:48 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: andrew@opengroup.org
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org


When the WG version of OpsGL is posted, I'd appreciate it if you would have 
a look at the several inter-related bits in this thread (submission 
license, publication license, free availability, free use, ...).

Will you accept the action item to do that and give us comments?

Some embedded coments (and some draft text at the end)...

At 03:35 PM 12/16/02 +0000, you wrote:

>>3.) OpsGL leftovers
>>         - CP6.1 proposal okay? (default: yes) [2a]
>>         - CP4.6 proposal okay? (default: yes) [2b]
>>         - issue 59 [2c]
>  Before the telcon,
>  here are a few comments on [2c] (test material licensing)
>  Checkpoint says
>  >> WG MUST define ... at least one license that is agreeable to the WG.

See the draft re-write of CP 5.3 at the end.  I have tried to incorporate 
our 12/16 telecon discussions.

>  This implies that the WG has restrictions/requirements on licenses. Are 
> these
>  published anywhere? We should try to help the readers of OpsGL by linking
>  to this so they can avoid all the usual pitfalls.

The WG will define its restrictions/requirements, in the new approach to CP5.3

>  E.g. It seems that materials must be freely available, but how about 
> freely usable?

"freely usable" is one of the issues about whether or not we should (must, 
...) have a special Test Materials License.  Issue #49, re-opened in 
discussion w/ Joseph Reagle (and awaiting some material from Kirill -- 
arguments for the necessity-of-scope of use restrictions in some cases.)

Btw, when we say "freely available" and "freely usable" do we mean:

** does not cost money?
** no restrictions on use?
** both?

>  Availability can be quantified. Source or binary only, platform 
> dependent etc?
>  I think these details are out of our scope but if someone has already 
> worked this
>  out we should reference a definitive guide rather than just link to 
> examples.

We propose that it be the WG's responsibility and duty to define the 
details.  We can (in ExTech) provide some examples.

Rough Draft re-write of CP5.3:

### start draft ###
Checkpoint 5.3.  Address license terms for submitted test materials.

[To fulfill...] To fulfill this checkpoint, in its QA Process Document the 
WG MUST define a submission license policy applicable to test materials 
submitted to the WG by external parties,  and the submission license policy 
MUST include at least an outline of terms, conditions, constraints, and 
principles that will govern acceptable submissions to the WG.

Rationale.  Defining submission license policies in advance will help 
clarify the WG's expectations to prospective TM submitters, and will 
facilitate the efficient negotiation of any needed custom submission 
licenses with submitters.

Discussion.  Note that any submission policy will inherit some constraints 
derived from other checkpoints in this guidelines specification, such as 
the requirements of publication licenses, and the requirements for free 
access to test materials.  A Working Group may in fact decide to publish a 
prototype submission license agreement that embodies terms and conditions 
acceptable to the WG.  In cases where a standard submission license is not 
acceptable, the WG will have to negotiate licenses with prospective 
contributors for their specific needs, under the principles defined.

Documented examples of TM submission licenses can be seen in the XML Schema 
submission license, and in the XML Protocol submission license.

[@@Ed note. Add more examples to Extech per KG email of 20021218.]
### end draft ###

Any comments, anyone?

Received on Sunday, 22 December 2002 15:58:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:32 UTC