Re: QAH review: licensing and branding

At 09:26 AM 7/7/2004 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>Le mar 06/07/2004 ŗ 23:22, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> > What's different now?  Why should we not expect
> > the same criticism of the Doc License recommendation as before, and how
> > would we answer (where is the rationale and process behind "the current
> > idea in W3C")?
>There are several main differences:
>- the Advisory Board has given its opinion, which means the point
>doesn't came solely from us - we don't have any weight with regard to
>the process operations, while the AB is the keeper of the process

Can we clarify... what does it mean, "the AB has given its opinion"?  Does 
this have the force of Process, i.e., conform or face consequences?  Or is 
it advice?  Or what?

>- the XML Query WG has shown that it was possible in the end to get
>agreement from major vendors for the document license for test cases
>- this is specifically focused on test cases, not on all test materials
>Does that answer your questions?

Yes, it answers, except see above question of clarification.

>I'm sorry this seems to arrive from

I myself find that objectionable, given our long history on this.

But if MS does not mind, and Sun does not mind (both of whom invested 
considerable energy and effort into this issue), then I guess we can 
anticipate no objections.  I don't reckon we'll hear anything from MS about 
what's in QAH (having apparently lost interest in QA).

>and I wish there were more materials accessible; there is a
>"Test Suite copyright policies" FAQ in preparation, which will have more
>details and to which we can link once it's available.

Bottom line -- I guess we (QAWG) don't actually have any issue here.  The 
AB has apparently decided it.


Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 09:34:44 UTC