OpsGL CP5.3 & "TM License"

For email discussion, and agenda of OpsGL issues telecon (Thursday)...

Ref: QAWG issue #49 [4]
Ref: LC-72.10 [5]

Following are:  synopsis, current OpsGL CP5.3 text, proposed modified OpsGL 
CP5.3 text, current resolution of QAWG-49, proposed modified QAWG-49, open 
detail, and summary.

Synopsis:
=====
QAWG has worked on the "Test Materials License" issue [4] for over a 
year.  While we have defined and fleshed out the sub-issues nicely (see 
linked Boston minutes and status summary), on the other hand forward 
progress has stopped.

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.

Meanwhile -- while this is being pursued -- OpsGL must find a way forward 
that is acceptable to the various interested parties.  Following is a 
proposal for such a way forward, that allows OpsGL to progress (to CR, and 
beyond).

Current OpsGL text [0]:
=====
Checkpoint 5.3. Address license terms for submitted test materials. 
[Priority 1]

Conformance requirements: in its QA Process Document the WG MUST define a 
submission license policy applicable to test materials submitted to the WG 
by external parties, and the submission license policy MUST include at 
least an outline of terms, conditions, constraints, and principles that 
will govern acceptable submissions to the WG.

Discussion. Unless exempted by custom submission terms with W3C Legal staff 
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].

Note also that any submission policy will inherit some constraints derived 
from other checkpoints in this guidelines specification, such as the 
requirements of publication licenses, and the requirements for free access 
to test materials. A Working Group may in fact decide to publish a 
prototype submission license agreement that embodies terms and conditions 
acceptable to the WG. In cases where a standard submission license is not 
acceptable, the WG will have to negotiate licenses with prospective 
contributors for their specific needs, under the principles defined.

Documented examples of TM submission licenses can be seen in the XML Schema 
submission license, and in the XML Protocol submission license.

Proposed revised OpsGL text:
=====
[no change to CP statement and ConfReq]

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].

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.

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.

Current QAWG issue 49 resolution [4]:
=====

"Use doc license if possible, software or W3C approved custom license if 
necessary; propose TM license as an example of license with scope of use 
restrictions."  [Ed note.  This is not reflected in OpsGL LC text -- no 
reference or link to the proposed "TM License"]

Proposed QAWG issue 49 resolution [4]:
=====

"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."

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."

In email comments about OpsGL Last Call text, CP5.3, JR wrote and recommended:

>I would not recommend including these as examples of "submission licenses".
>Presently, there are only two "W3C licenses" (software and document) and
>those are the ones that have been used by XMLP and schema. (As a consequent
>to our discussion [1] perhaps we will have a Test License in the future.)
>There were various "submission/contribution grants" but we've now converged
>on a standard one [2]. That's what folks should focus on. (While those
>grants are in facts licenses to the W3C, I prefer to reserve the word
>"license" for how material on the W3C is disposed of and "grant" for how
>material comes to be on the W3C site.) I'm not opposed to you linking to a
>WG process document/solicitation (e.g. [3]) as long as it is clear that
>there are standard W3C licenses and a standard contribution grant.
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jan/0041.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/contribution-grant-20021231
>[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-test-collection.html


Summary
=====

Except for working out the detail about examples, this gives QAWG a way 
forward, to finish processing OpsGL, while a W3C-wide forum works on the 
issues surrounding a new "TM License".

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.


Regards,
-Lofton.
[0] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-ops-20030210/#Gd-QA-process-doc#Ck-proc-define-licenses 

[4] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x49
[5] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x72