Re: fixing my "TM License" mess

Patrick & Joseph in particular, heads-up please.  We need to find wording 
mutually acceptable to PC and JR.  Proposed final wording of CP6.2 enclosed...

At 11:53 AM 5/1/03 -0400, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>[...]
>
>(see below)
>
> > However, there are situations in which the Document License is unworkable
> > -- for example, there are Test Materials that require modification or
> > completion in order to apply them.
>[Here is where there would be a 'use' caveat about Doc License, if we 
>decide one is needed.]
>"Furthermore, we have encountered a number of issues which would benefit
>from additional discussion, resolution, and the development of a W3C Test
>License tailored specifically to test materials."

It isn't exactly what I had in mind.  After telecon, I had anticipated some 
explicit mention of the 'use/right-to-use' issue, since that was the 
specific target of Sun's comment.

However, I will go with the sense of your comment, but would suggest to 
modify it only slightly to tie into existing text more 
meaningfully:  "Furthermore, there are additional issues about the 
usability of the Document License for Test Materials, which would benefit 
from additional discussion, resolution, and the development of a W3C Test 
License tailored specifically to test materials."  [Note -- I am NOT 
mentioning the 'use' issue here, but rather trying to capture generically 
the class of open issues, under "DL not usable for TM"]

See complete text below.  See complete text below, with JR proposed text 
and [Alt: ...] proposal.

>[I've already suggested "inappropriate" instead of "unworkable". Also, I
>don't mention the "use" issue specifically since I want to speak to Patrick
>about it, but text could be added if appropriate. ]

Right, I'll make that change.

Proposed new CP6.2 text (w /JR proposal & [Alt:...])
=====
(Current: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-ops-20030210/#Ck-proc-define-pub-licenses 
)

Checkpoint 6.2. Define the licenses applicable to published test materials. 
[Priority 1]

Conformance requirements: the Working Group MUST define in its QA Process 
Document the licenses that are applicable to published test materials.

Rationale. Any W3C-hosted materials must have approved license and use 
terms associated. Because there is no single license that is appropriate 
for all test materials, the WG needs consider the options, select or define 
a best license for its particular test materials, and clearly inform 
potential users.

Discussion. Currently approved W3C licenses that may be applied to test 
materials are the Document License and the Software License. The Document 
license has two characteristics that are valuable to test materials:

* It prohibits the test materials from being modified by the user upon 
download, therefore guaranteeing the integrity of the test mateials;
* It requires that if the test materials are copied or redistributed, they 
must contain the link to the original test materials and their status.

However, there are situations in which the Document License is 
inappropriate -- for example, there are Test Materials that require 
modification or completion in order to apply them.  Furthermore, we have 
encountered a number of issues which would benefit from additional 
discussion, resolution, and the development of a W3C Test License tailored 
specifically to test materials.  [Alt:  Furthermore, there are additional 
issues about the usability of the Document License for Test Materials, 
which would benefit from more discussion, resolution, and the development 
of a W3C Test License tailored specifically to test materials.]

Test Materials may contain any of these three components: test software, 
test documentation, and test cases. It is possible and sometimes desirable 
that the WG apply different licenses to different components.

If the WG considers that neither the Document nor the Software License is 
applicable, it should consult with W3C Legal.
### end ###

-Lofton.