- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:40:51 -0500
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, "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 04:06 pm, Lofton Henderson wrote: > 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. If someone did want to modify the tests they would have to document the changes. To further this, the trademark restriction was added to preclude any misrepresentation that the modified form was in any way sanctioned by the W3C. So for instance if we released the W3C FOOBAR Test Suite under the W3C Software License, others could: 1. Modify the framework/harness to their context. If they republish they have to document the change of course and can not represent it as "the" W3C test suite any more. 2. If someone was interested in tracking the errata, or versioning them to the next version (if for instance, this wasn't being done by a WG), they would be permitted to do so, but again they would have to document the fact and not incorrectly represent the test's authenticity and standing with respect to the W3C. I'd hope this would satisfy your concern regarding the standing of the test suites.
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 16:42:22 UTC