W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2013

Re: DOM, Promises, and licensing

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:17:26 -0400
Message-ID: <51E03A26.7080002@w3.org>
To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
On 7/12/2013 11:57 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net 
> <mailto: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,
>

what's that?

>     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.
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 17:17:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:58 UTC