Re: OpsGL CP5.3 & "TM License"

Thanks, Joseph.  We look forward to you joining us Thursday.

For now, one comment embedded....

At 07:23 PM 4/30/03 -0400, Joseph Reagle wrote:

>On Wednesday 30 April 2003 14:43, you wrote:
> > Because of the nature of the issue and the interests of the stakeholders,
> > this issue needs to be moved to a larger, W3C-wide forum.
>
>While I'm happy with the proposals below I do want to caution that I don't
>think this is on the agenda of some other, wider forum. It could happen,
>and I think we should apprise the Chairs, at least, of the QA WG
>resolution, but I don't want to set an expectation that work is actively
>beginning elsewhere.

Agreed, it is on no one's agenda yet.  Karl proposed, "Maybe we should 
present the different opinions to w3m and ask if there's a possible 
solution at a larger member level? AC Forum."  A part of our resolution 
could be that the QA staff/team initiate this.


> > Discussion. Unless exempted by custom submission terms with W3C
> > Director's approval, a WG's submission license policies will necessarily
> > conform to standard W3C policies for submitted materials, and
> > specifically those procedures and terms defined in Contribution of
> > Software or Test Materials to W3C [CONTRIB].
>
>Sounds good.
>
> > Currently approved W3C licenses that may be applied to test materials are
> > the Document License and the Software License. The Document license has
> > the characteristic of prohibiting modification of the Test Materials by
> > licensees. This can be a highly desirable attribute for the protection of
> > the integrity of test materials.  However, there are situations in which
> > it is unworkable -- for example, there are Test Materials that require
> > modification or completion in order to apply them.
>
>Perhaps "inappropriate" is better than "unworkable"?
>
> > Test Materials may contain any of these three of these components:  test
> > software, test documentation, and test cases.  It is possible and
> > sometimes desirable that the WG apply different licenses to different
> > components.
>
>Good.
>
> > "Recommend to use Document License if it will work, Software License if
> > not; may use different ones for test documentation, test cases, and test
> > software; consult with W3C Legal if neither Software nor Document works
> > for you."
>
>Ok.
>
>
> > Open Detail
> > =====
> >
> > What to do with the last paragraph of current CP5.3 text:
> >
> > "Documented examples of TM submission licenses can be seen in the XML
> > Schema submission license, and in the XML Protocol submission license."
>
>As above, please just state, "The standard grant by which test suites, or
>other software, can be contributed to the W3C is [1].
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/contribution-grant-20021231
>"
>
> > This does not resolve the additional comment in LC-72.10, that the
> > removal of "use" from the Document License prevents W3C member companies
> > from using any TM that carry the Document License.  W3C Legal claims that
> > is not the case.  This disagreement needs to be resolved between W3C
> > Legal and members -- a consensus on whether or not the lack of an
> > explicit 'Use' grant is actually a problem.
>
>Agreed. I'm quite confident on this point, but if folks are still
>unconvinced I'm happy to continue the conversation with them.

Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 19:53:15 UTC