QAH review: licensing and branding

As per my F2F AI, here is my review of section 4 of the latest QAH
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qa-handbook-20040510/#IANAL
(I won't mention the changes that we already agreed to make wrt "IPR")

"GP: As early as possible, get WG consensus and define acceptable
license terms for submission of test materials'."
From what I understand, this is not really needed; from what I've been
told:
- Members contribute to a test suite and have a joint copyright on it
through the Member agreement
- Invited experts, through the Collaborator agreement
- Staff contacts, through their contracts

If the WG wants to accept contribution from the public, it should use
the contribution form specifically crafted for that:
http://www.w3.org/2003/12/tests-tf/draft-grant-document-license
(note that this relies on having the Test cases published under the doc
license, see below).

The question of patents in submitted test cases is covered by
http://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq.html#testcases

So, in short, I think the points I'm making above are worth documenting
in the QAH in lieu of the current good practice, but I'm not sure there
is anything to be kept as a good practice per se.

"As soon as the nature of the Working Group's test materials becomes
clear, get consensus and define license terms for publication of the
test materials."
The current idea inside W3C is that the document license should be the
default for the test cases themselves; I'm not sure how we should word
that, but I think it would be worth putting up the Document license as
the thing to do, and warn that using any other type of license may take
a long time to get agreement, and should be considered all the more
early.
(note that what I'm saying only apply to test cases as far as I
understand, which means that our note with regard to different licenses
for different parts of the test suite still makes sense)

Dom
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org