- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:41:54 -0500
- To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>, "Karin Rivard" <rivard@MIT.EDU>, "Marija V. Jankovich" <marija@MIT.EDU>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
On Thursday 14 November 2002 01:15 am, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote: > 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. Yes, the DOM Test Suite has been successfully built and distributed under the W3C Software License -- as has the XML Test Suite. If necessary, the ability to alter the test suite (e.g., build language specific bindings) is a reason to choose the Software License, but folks might want to permit maximum flexibility (e.g., the XML Test Suite are just instances and don't require any modifications for use I don't think.) > 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. This is what I'm trying to understand. How does it limit availability and prevent contributions?
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 14:42:04 UTC