- From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:15:38 -0800
- To: <reagle@w3.org>, "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>, "Karin Rivard" <rivard@MIT.EDU>, "Marija V. Jankovich" <marija@MIT.EDU>
Hi Joseph et al, 1. When the Document License does not work for publishing test Materials? An example would be any downloadable test materials package that would require modification (even just platform/implementation adjustments) in order to be used for a product testing. An existing example is a W3C DOM test suite, which is published under the modified W3C Software License and cannot be published under Document License. Future XQuery test suite will face this issue, since baseline comparison and even running XQuery tests would require certain adaptation to the implementation needs and therefore a "derivative work". 2. Why the Software License does not work for Test Materials? Using GPL compatible licenses like the W3C Software License for test materials without restricting the scope of use - limits availability of the published test materials for certain vendors - prevents certain potential contributors from submitting test materials to the W3C test suite. Both are key requirements encouraged by the QA WG for any test development process in the W3C. Limiting the scope of use for the Test Materials solely towards testing would solve these 2 issues, at least for Microsoft. Limiting the scope of use in the copyright license is a common practice among vendors, so I'm wondering why would it be a problem for the W3C? 3. I do understand the resources concern that you mentioned in the first paragraph. But I would point out that because we do not have a common license for test materials, the W3C team has to maintain a separate copyright license for each test suite, when the original licenses do not fit. Example is a DOM Test suite license that is a modification of the Software License, essentially limiting the derivation work. Thanks > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph Reagle [mailto:reagle@w3.org] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:26 AM > To: Lofton Henderson > Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org; Karin Rivard; Marija V. Jankovich > Subject: Re: proposed Test Materials license > > > On Friday 08 November 2002 10:41 am, Lofton Henderson wrote: > > The "Operational Guidelines" of the QA Working Group (QAWG) define > > guidelines for the process and operational aspects of the quality > > practices of the W3C WGs. One of the considerations is licenses > > applicable to test materials [1]. We have had discussion in the past, > > and concluded that W3C Document License was better than W3C Software > > License, for a number of reasons. > > Hi Loften (and QA WG)! > > To set some context for my response, the support (e.g., email questions > and > the FAQ) and maintenance (e.g., tweaking and fixing bugs) of the copyright > licenses is a non-trivial cost. <smile/> First, there's the W3C Team time > (mostly me) and more importantly the extremely rare time of high cost of > counsel. So, for these reasons we have a great interest in minimizing the > number of legal materials we have to develop and support. So regardless of > the substantive points below I would expect the threshold for adoption of > a > new license to be quite high. > > To start, variances such as the terminology of "personal, non-transferable > and non-sublicenseable" are terms of the art which I would have to consult > and get approval of counsel for. > > > As indicated in the "Note" at the end of checkpoint 6.2 [1], the QAWG > now > > believes that a Test Materials (TM) License is needed. A draft proposed > > Test Materials License is at [2]. The rationales for a TM License > > include: * Test Materials are specific documents provided for a specific, > > defined and limited purpose. The license to use and copy them can > > therefore be specific, defined and limited. > > There's two scopes involved. First, is the scope of the license on the > material it applies to. This might not be your concern and it can be > addressed by being very specific in the materials about exactly which > materials (in a cvs checkout directory, tar/zip ball, branch of our web > space) the license applies to. Second, is the scope of use provided by the > license. Trying to govern the use of materials (i.e., "solely for the > purpose of testing compliance") via a license is tricky. We haven't done > this in any copyright license before. We do make exceptions in the FAQ for > well known scenarios (translation and annotation) in creating derivative > works of documents, but not in the first order (primary) rights of copying. > > > * The W3C SOFTWARE and DOCUMENT licenses are more general in nature > > and do not provide for the precise license grant. The W3C SOFTWARE and > > DOCUMENT were not intended to cover the conveyance of rights effected by > > the proposed "Notice and License for Test Materials." > > Regardless of their present titles, which are still fairly fitting, they > now > serve two functional classes of license: a OSI/GPL compatible license > (i.e., software), and a license which restricts derivative works > (document). For instance, while some might not consider a test suite or > DTD > "software", they have been released under the software license. > > > * Any ambiguity that may exist with respect to someone's right to > use > > the test materials under the "one size fits all" W3C SOFTWARE and > > DOCUMENT licenses are expressly clarified by the proposed "Notice and > > License for Test Materials." > > In addition, the following is expressed by some W3C members who are > > potential contributors of test materials: > > * Essentially this document addresses the ambiguity of the Software > > license that makes it impossible for vendors to submit a testing code. > > In other words, some potential TM submitters will not submit materials > if > > they are under the Software (or Document) license for re-use and > > redistribution. > > > > We look forward to your thoughts and feedback on this. > > While I certainly appreciate a complete proposal, could we put that aside > for the moment and look at the specific scenarios why the document license > is not considered satisfactory?
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 01:16:19 UTC