Re: QAH outline

Le ven 23/04/2004 ŗ 01:04, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> >Hmm... I'm unsure... It may better to leave it empty for now, waiting
> >for the topic to be cleared out - there have subsequent discussions
> >which make me wonder if the results of the meeting in June is still
> >relevant. Sorry not to have better references yet...
> I am opposed to leaving it empty completely.  After a lot of effort, we 
> achieved and published some results.  Those have not been superseded yet by 
> anything visible to the membership (including our audience, the Chairs).  I 
> think "no advice" is worse than some generic advice, like "Software License 
> or Document License, or piecewise application of same to different TS 
> components."

My fear comes from the fact that in these matters, bad advice is worse
than no advice... As I said, the issues are pretty complex, and it's
hard to get a firm answer as soon as you deal with legalese. From what I
can see, as of today, the preferred license for publishing a test suite
is the Document license ; the topics of contributions, copyright
holding, patent infringements would be good to cover as well.

I'll try to coordinate with the person in charge tomorrow...

Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux -

Received on Monday, 26 April 2004 06:18:30 UTC