- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:31:39 -0600
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Dom, Thanks for the review. I'll try to have a careful look-think in the next week or so. If any issues, we can discuss at the next QAWG telecon. Cheers, -Lofton. At 11:38 AM 6/30/2004 +0200, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >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 >
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2004 11:31:34 UTC