Re: OpsGL CP5.3 & "TM License"

[..Note switch to WG list..]

In my haste, I have botched this pretty well.  Basically, I applied 
discussion and proposed resolution about *published* test materials (CP6.1) 
to the text of *submitted* test materials (CP5.3).

For now, consider that the words and sense of the last two paragraphs of 
the Proposed new CP5.3 text to really belong in the body of CP6.1 
(publish), and we will expunge reference to the prototype TM license for 
now from CP6.1.

Issue #59 about CP5.3 (submit) was previous resolved, and has not been 
reopened: "No, we won't try to devise W3C-wide submission licenses".  The 
first paragraph of CP5.3 discussion is the key one.  Joseph also requested 
the deletion of the 2nd paragraph, and has some comments about the 
referenced examples.

Our goal for next OpsGL.  In 5.3 and 6.1, to document what is the current 
reality, and require WGs to document these aspects of their processes.  We 
will not try to invent anything new here.  We will refer the problems to 
some forum such as AC Forum (per Karl's suggestion).

Our goal for Thursday.  Approve this approach.  Plus, minimal set of 
editing directives -- or a plan to produce same -- to implement 
this.  (Without eating up the whole hour).

Apologies for creating the confusion.

Regards,
Lofton.

At 12:43 PM 4/30/03 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>For email discussion, and agenda of OpsGL issues telecon (Thursday)...
>
>Ref: QAWG issue #49 [4]
>Ref: LC-72.10 [5]
>
>Following are:  synopsis, current OpsGL CP5.3 text, proposed modified 
>OpsGL CP5.3 text, current resolution of QAWG-49, proposed modified 
>QAWG-49, open detail, and summary.
>
>Synopsis:
>=====
>QAWG has worked on the "Test Materials License" issue [4] for over a 
>year.  While we have defined and fleshed out the sub-issues nicely (see 
>linked Boston minutes and status summary), on the other hand forward 
>progress has stopped.
>
>Because of the nature of the issue and the interests of the stakeholders, 
>this issue needs to be moved to a larger, W3C-wide forum.
>
>Meanwhile -- while this is being pursued -- OpsGL must find a way forward 
>that is acceptable to the various interested parties.  Following is a 
>proposal for such a way forward, that allows OpsGL to progress (to CR, and 
>beyond).
>
>Current OpsGL text [0]:
>=====
>Checkpoint 5.3. Address license terms for submitted test materials. 
>[Priority 1]
>
>Conformance requirements: in its QA Process Document the WG MUST define a 
>submission license policy applicable to test materials submitted to the WG 
>by external parties, and the submission license policy MUST include at 
>least an outline of terms, conditions, constraints, and principles that 
>will govern acceptable submissions to the WG.
>
>Discussion. Unless exempted by custom submission terms with W3C Legal 
>staff approval, a WG's submission license policies will necessarily 
>conform to standard W3C policies for submitted materials, and specifically 
>those procedures and terms defined in Contribution of Software or Test 
>Materials to W3C [CONTRIB].
>
>Note also that any submission policy will inherit some constraints derived 
>from other checkpoints in this guidelines specification, such as the 
>requirements of publication licenses, and the requirements for free access 
>to test materials. A Working Group may in fact decide to publish a 
>prototype submission license agreement that embodies terms and conditions 
>acceptable to the WG. In cases where a standard submission license is not 
>acceptable, the WG will have to negotiate licenses with prospective 
>contributors for their specific needs, under the principles defined.
>
>Documented examples of TM submission licenses can be seen in the XML 
>Schema submission license, and in the XML Protocol submission license.
>
>Proposed revised OpsGL text:
>=====
>[no change to CP statement and ConfReq]
>
>Discussion. Unless exempted by custom submission terms with W3C Director's 
>approval, a WG's submission license policies will necessarily conform to 
>standard W3C policies for submitted materials, and specifically those 
>procedures and terms defined in Contribution of Software or Test Materials 
>to W3C [CONTRIB].
>
>Currently approved W3C licenses that may be applied to test materials are 
>the Document License and the Software License. The Document license has 
>the characteristic of prohibiting modification of the Test Materials by 
>licensees. This can be a highly desirable attribute for the protection of 
>the integrity of test materials.  However, there are situations in which 
>it is unworkable -- for example, there are Test Materials that require 
>modification or completion in order to apply them.
>
>Test Materials may contain any of these three of these components:  test 
>software, test documentation, and test cases.  It is possible and 
>sometimes desirable that the WG apply different licenses to different 
>components.
>
>Current QAWG issue 49 resolution [4]:
>=====
>
>"Use doc license if possible, software or W3C approved custom license if 
>necessary; propose TM license as an example of license with scope of use 
>restrictions."  [Ed note.  This is not reflected in OpsGL LC text -- no 
>reference or link to the proposed "TM License"]
>
>Proposed QAWG issue 49 resolution [4]:
>=====
>
>"Recommend to use Document License if it will work, Software License if 
>not; may use different ones for test documentation, test cases, and test 
>software; consult with W3C Legal if neither Software nor Document works 
>for you."
>
>Open Detail
>=====
>
>What to do with the last paragraph of current CP5.3 text:
>
>"Documented examples of TM submission licenses can be seen in the XML 
>Schema submission license, and in the XML Protocol submission license."
>
>In email comments about OpsGL Last Call text, CP5.3, JR wrote and recommended:
>
>>I would not recommend including these as examples of "submission licenses".
>>Presently, there are only two "W3C licenses" (software and document) and
>>those are the ones that have been used by XMLP and schema. (As a consequent
>>to our discussion [1] perhaps we will have a Test License in the future.)
>>There were various "submission/contribution grants" but we've now converged
>>on a standard one [2]. That's what folks should focus on. (While those
>>grants are in facts licenses to the W3C, I prefer to reserve the word
>>"license" for how material on the W3C is disposed of and "grant" for how
>>material comes to be on the W3C site.) I'm not opposed to you linking to a
>>WG process document/solicitation (e.g. [3]) as long as it is clear that
>>there are standard W3C licenses and a standard contribution grant.
>>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jan/0041.html
>>[2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/contribution-grant-20021231
>>[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-test-collection.html
>
>
>Summary
>=====
>
>Except for working out the detail about examples, this gives QAWG a way 
>forward, to finish processing OpsGL, while a W3C-wide forum works on the 
>issues surrounding a new "TM License".
>
>This does not resolve the additional comment in LC-72.10, that the removal 
>of "use" from the Document License prevents W3C member companies from 
>using any TM that carry the Document License.  W3C Legal claims that is 
>not the case.  This disagreement needs to be resolved between W3C Legal 
>and members -- a consensus on whether or not the lack of an explicit 'Use' 
>grant is actually a problem.
>
>
>Regards,
>-Lofton.
>[0] 
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-ops-20030210/#Gd-QA-process-doc#Ck-proc-define-licenses 
>
>[4] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x49
>[5] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x72