- From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@sun.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 14:02:33 -0800
- To: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- CC: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org, ab@w3.org
I have some serious concerns about the applicability of the Document license to software. Not surprisingly, since the license was devised for specifications, the terms "software" or "code" are not even mentioned. Even if we extend the interpretation of "document" to include "code", the license does not seem to grant the rights to "use" the software that I believe were intended. Was this proposal reviewed by a lawyer? (An attorney at Sun has raised similar concerns, and I suspect that attorneys for organizations hoping to use these test suites would also be concerned.) One size does not fit all. If there is a need for a more restrictive license than the current W3C Software license, then I think we may need to create a new one to serve this purpose. ======== Joseph Reagle wrote: >On Tuesday 04 February 2003 13:24, Lofton Henderson wrote: > > >>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. >> >> > >I don't think it's a matter of "visibility" or middle ground, once we have a >robust understanding of the requirements a W3C Test License might be >appropriate course of action. > > > >>Any case, it would be easier to finally sort out face-to-face, IMO. >> >> > >This sounds like a good idea, I have no other scheduled activity on the >Thur/Fri of that plenary week. However, I hope we can continue the >discussion prior to then. > > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 17:03:06 UTC