- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:34:41 -0500
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
On Friday 15 November 2002 05:15 pm, Lofton Henderson wrote: > For example, if the SVG test suite were under Software License (it is > under Document), I could make a modified version of the SVG test suite > that suppresses features that my implementation fails. I believe that I > would satisfy #3 by putting some obscure comment > (XML comment, <!-- ... -->) in the SVG source code. The naive observer > would see a test displayed -- apparently a member of "W3C SVG 1.0 Test > Suite, Release 2.0" -- but would not know the truth about it unless > he/she happened to "View Source" (and be technically competent). > > Notice that I'm assuming deceptive intent -- it happens occasionally. I don't see it as much of a threat. We do have instances of people changing or altering our specifications for their purposes such that we ask them to stop or alter their practice. ~80% of the cases are people not appreciating the importance of things we value: such as removing or moving the status section, a version number, the specific dated URIs, etc. We've had a few cases where people deceptively use our content but I've *never* seen a case where it is for pretending that somehow they are compliant to a specification; instead, they reformat the content so they can pretend they have lots of good content on their lame consulting and publishing sites. <smile/> The pillory someone would receive by trying to rip off a document or test suite changing it and claiming compliance would actually exceed the pain I think lawyers can inflict, though that option is there too! <smile/> > I'd be interested in some interpretations or some "for examples" -- what > is acceptable and what is unacceptable for #1 and #3 (under a strict > reading of those)? (I lost the context here). > For my taste, for W3C-hosted test materials, I would like the option of > stronger constraints than I'm reading into the Software License. (Unless > I'm misreading it.) > > This is distinct from Kirill's other problem -- corporate policy that > prevents donation of test materials without scope-of-use restrictions. To recapitulate the options: 1. Release under the software license. This permits: A. Changes for the purposes of frameworks and language bindings. B. Others to make changes to track new versions or use in new contexts (e.g., taking a XPath test suite and using it in a XPointer or XSLT, or XMLDSIG test suite). C. I consider people trying to abuse or deceive on this note highly unlikely and actionable. 2. Release under the Document License. This involves: A. If desired, a FAQ could be added which grants permission for the necessary changes to use in a framework (like our translation and annotation exceptions for Documents). 3. Create a New License: A. I'm hesitant to call it a "Test License" because I would expect other test materials may continue to want to be released under document/software licenses? (I can't think of a better name, but it seems to further propagate these "out-dated" names...) B. Have it be word-by-word identical to the Document license, except the paragraph regarding derivative works in which we grant the permission necessary for applying bindings in a framework. C. (Optionally address the scope of use issue though I don't understand the scenario there yet.) Given our discussions, perhaps we should present the most tenable options to Chairs and get wider feedback/experiences?
Received on Friday, 22 November 2002 13:34:47 UTC