W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Legal Issues (Was: QA Framework Last Call -- request for review)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:24:35 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org, ab@w3.org

[Note.  I replaced qa-chairs@w3.org with www-qa-wg@w3.org, since these are 
substantive comments about the OpsGL license-related checkpoints.  -LRH]


Thanks for prompt feedback -- 1 wk before Last Call starts!  ;-)

I apologize if we were unclear about this, in our solicitation for 
commitment to review.

Fortunately, the qaframe-ops text (20030120) that you looked at is 
substantively identical to the LC version that will be published on Monday, 
10th February.  So we will apply your comments to the LC version.

Since Last Call will be in progress during Tech Plenary week, I wonder if 
you could visit us in QAWG (Thur-Fri face-to-face)?  We have gone around 
quite a bit on this by email, and I think it would be much more easily 
solved with a little discussion.  I know that Kirill has further rejoinder 
to you on that thread (mentioned below) about why Microsoft (MS) cannot 
submit test materials (TM) that will be redistributed under Software 
License or Document License.  The QAWG tried to find an acceptable middle 
ground -- somewhere between elevating TM license to the highly visible W3C 
level of Software License and Document License, on the one hand, and saying 
nothing to the concerns of potential contributors like MS, on the 
other.  It seems that we may have missed the mark.

Any case, it would be easier to finally sort out face-to-face, IMO.


At 06:16 PM 2/3/03 -0500, Joseph Reagle wrote:

>[cc:ing AB since the first question relates to process.]
>On Monday 27 January 2003 21:31, you wrote:
> > * W3C Process (esp. Intro, OpsGL)
>I didn't see anything in the Intro that caught my eye with respect to
>legal/process questions.
> >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].
>I think the intent is very good but I'd like to express a caveat. First,
>while the Director clearly wouldn't be following up on the detailed
>particulars of what license should be used for testing materials, within
>the process the "Director" is a defined role with a defined authority,
>whereas "W3C Legal staff" is not. Consequently, I'd propose exceptions
>would only be made by the Director, and he'll delegate as appropriate.
> >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.
>I would like this text to be removed. I do not want to see a proliferation
>of licenses, and while the text I quoted above regarding approval of W3C
>Legal Staff (i.e., Director) makes it clear that such a "prototype" would
>not be binding I fear that it would be a troubling source of confusion.
>Instead, I would like the text to state that the available licenses for
>distribution of test materials may be found on [0]. If these licenses are
>not acceptable the WG should [here's my proposal:] inform the Director as
>to why (with a cc: to the ab@w3.org and site-policy@w3.org).
>[0] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice
> >Documented examples of TM submission licenses can be seen in the
> >XML Schema submission license, and in the XML Protocol submission license.
> >[@@Ed note. Add more examples to Extech per KG email of 20021218.]
>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
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 13:22:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:32 UTC