- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:11:06 -0700
- To: reagle@w3.org
- Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
At 01:34 PM 11/22/02 -0500, Joseph Reagle wrote: >On Friday 15 November 2002 05:15 pm, Lofton Henderson wrote: >[...] 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 am becoming convinced that the integrity issue can be handled with existing mechanisms. My dark suspicions probably stem from earlier experience -- in another venue with other standards -- as a validator provider in a smaller technical community with less self-policing. But even there ... vendors were quick to complain if they thought other vendors were bending the rules and etiquettes. >[...] > > > > 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.) Kirill has an open action item to provide clarification. >Given our discussions, perhaps we should present the most tenable options to >Chairs and get wider feedback/experiences? I will propose this to QAWG as the way forward, Thanks, -Lofton.
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 10:10:16 UTC