Relicense #394
Relicense #394
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, we want people to be able to freely reuse any code in the practices. So getting the appropriate licensing in place is important. Thank you!!
I am working on contributor documentation on the wiki. It's still very incomplete. It would seem that the non-member patenting is something for which I should raise awareness there.
BTW, if someone is a w3c member but not a member of ARIA WG, I assume they are covered by the w3c patent commitment.
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ | |||
| Contributions to this repository are intended to become part of Recommendation-track documents governed by the | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wait, I thought practices was non-rec-track? confused.
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ | |||
| Contributions to this repository are intended to become part of Recommendation-track documents governed by the | |||
| [W3C Patent Policy](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/) and | |||
| [Software and Document License](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software). To make substantive contributions to specifications, you must either participate | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Practices is not a specification, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not that I know, thought it was a note?
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
| Contributions to this repository are intended to become part of Recommendation-track documents governed by the | ||
| [W3C Patent Policy](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/) and | ||
| [Software and Document License](https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software). To make substantive contributions to specifications, you must either participate | ||
| in the relevant W3C Working Group or make a non-member patent licensing commitment. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How does someone make a non-member patent licensing commitment?
| To add a contributor (other than yourself, that's automatic), mark them one per line as follows: | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| +@github_username |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In practice, what will this do? Will PR comments be somehow mined for this info to create some kind of documentation? Or, is the existence of such comments in the PR the extent of the documentation?
How will these @mentions be distinguished from others? @mentions are commin in PR comments.
| If you added a contributor by mistake, you can remove them in a comment with: | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| -@github_username |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not just edit the pr comment and remove the @mention? PR comments are editable by their author, aren't they?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure that would remove them as contributors.
It came to my attention that W3C GitHub repos are supposed to contain license information (another undocumented thing). This was in context of a question about which license specs should have. The ARIA specs are currently under the W3C Document License (the respec default, and also the only one recognized by PubRules), but my recollection is the group wanted Practices to be under the Software and Document License to allow code snippets to be reused. This pull request makes that happen, submitted as a pull request to enable review and discussion. It will probably cause headaches at publication time, but it's better to swith to the license we intended then to forget about it again.