Re: proposed Test Materials license

At 02:41 PM 11/14/02 -0500, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>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,

One problem with the Software License is that it places no constraints on 
the types or extent of modifications that may be done.  Users of a 
W3C-distributed Test Suite absolutely should not be allowed to make 
modifications to the substance of the tests.  This is why the "Operational 
Guidelines" recommend the Document License.  However, as people have noted, 
modifications to the framework, harnesses, operating interfaces, etc, may 
be necessary for some kinds of test suites.

It is a tricky distinction to try to make, but in cases where the 
(no-modification) Document License won't work, IMO the Software License is 
too unrestricted.  My point here is about guarding the integrity of the 
test materials, and is distinct from the argument that Kirill is making, 
that some member companies are not willing to release their materials 
without scope-of-use restrictions.

>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.)

I'm not sure I understand the point about "permit maximum flexibility".


Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 16:06:23 UTC