search

w3c / cg-council

Repository to track issues and improvements with the W3C Community Groups and Business Groups program
2 stars 3 forks source link

CLA doesn't appear to apply to discussion in a CG, or any CG document that isn't a Specification #1

Closed hober closed 4 years ago

hober commented 4 years ago

The CBGP says:

Community Group deliverables may be anything, including documents, test suites, tutorials, demos, code, discussion, etc[…]

The label “Community Group Report” refers to any document produced by a Group. Some Community Group Reports are Specifications. The following rules apply to Specifications:

  • drafts are governed by Community Contributor License Agreement (CLA). W3C will provide a template for including copyright information.

and the CLA uses the term Specification throughout.

I think this means that non-Specification documents, test suites, tutorials, code, and discussion within a CG are not covered by the CLA. Is this intentional?

See https://github.com/privacycg/privacycg.github.io/pull/14#discussion_r401258357 for a case of this concern coming up in the context of a CG.

dbaron commented 4 years ago

Another important case of a possibly-Specification document that's not totally clear is explainers.

ianbjacobs commented 4 years ago

Hi @hober,

It was intentional in the design of Community Groups that the CLA be limited to Specifications.

This is analogous to the Working Group patent policy, which applies to the text of Recommendations (and not test suites, discussion, code, etc.)

Not all Community Group Reports (e.g., explainers) are specifications. The goal was for the CLA to (only) cover those CG Reports that are specifications, that is: things that get implemented in code.

Ian

hober commented 4 years ago

Okay, thanks for the clarification.