Re: DOM, Promises, and licensing

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Alex Russell wrote:
> >We have a problem and I understand that you -- and pretty much nobody else
> >-- can solve it. That might be mistaken, as might my understanding of the
> >whole situation, but that's because there's little I can find to outline
> >the thinking behind the problem: Anne van Kesteren is *not allowed to edit
> >the W3C DOM spec!?!?*
>
> Jeff is probably busy spreading the doctrine of heteronomous computing,
> so let me help out here: Anne is not allowed to edit the specification
> because he has not re-joined W3C's Web Applications Working Group after
> leaving it, and Chairs cannot appoint non-participants as editors.
>

I'm coming up to speed on the details of this controversy as I go, so
apologies for fumbling a bit. Hope you'll correct my misunderstandings
where they are evident to you.

My *current* understanding is that re-joining is not the core of the issue;
it's the concurrent editing of both W3C and WHATWG documents related to a
DOM of some kind. E.g., if Anne re-joins WebApps to edit W3C DOM, he will
(for some unspecified reason) be enjoined from editing the WHATWG DOM
document.

It appears the kicker is the W3C's (perverse) interpretation of this line;
hoisted from the Invited Expert
Agreement<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2007/06-invited-expert>,
section 2.2, paragraph 4:

The Invited Expert agrees to refrain from creating derivative works that
include the Invited Expert's contributions when those derivative works are
likely to cause confusion about the status of the W3C work or create risks
of non-interoperability with a W3C Recommendation. «Branching» is one
example of a non-permissible derivative work.


This language appears to be absent from the current Member
Agreement<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Agreement/> as
well as the previous
one<http://www.w3.org/2009/12/Member-Agreement-until-20130101>.
It's confusing to determine which Member Agreement is currently in
force<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231>(and
which version is in force with regards to which members) because the
apparently latest version has "DRAFT" written all over it, but the
referenced Copyright policy similarly seems to be missing this
language<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231>
 too.

In the case of the Invited Expert language, Anne only runs risks here if
the W3C itself takes the view that WHATWG documents are somehow
"confusing". It seems incredible to me that they would be, but regardless,
this could be cleared up with a statement of interpretation by Jeff and/or
the Consortium's lawyers.

In the case of the member agreement, I have been informed that Jeff and the
Consortium view the language in force as mirroring the restrictions found
in the Invited Expert agreement; despite not (to my eyes) including such
language under any reasonable interpretation.

This *would* be a simple issue of membership were it clearly not hazardous
to Anne's interests to attempt to re-join the WG. As it stands, that isn't
at all clear.

What Jeff et. al. can and must do is to state clearly that Anne may
participate in DOM and edit a WHATWG spec in the same area. Until that
happens, it would simply be insane for Anne to take the risks as an
individual or, worse, drag Mozilla into a protracted legal dispute over
what, one hopes, would be a question settled through good faith.

The situation seems no less intolerable than it did several hours ago.