W3C reftest submissions and imports

14 views
Skip to first unread message

fantasai

unread,
Sep 22, 2011, 8:24:18 PM9/22/11
to mozill...@lists.mozilla.org
I wanted to set up a directory in mozilla-central where we can host tests that
are sync'ed with W3C, specifically for the CSSWG test suites, which are
dual-licensed under the W3C Document License and the BSD 3-clause.

The dual-license that applies to the W3C tests:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright

The license grant that W3C requests of contributors to the test suite:

The Contributor hereby grants to the W3C, a perpetual, non-exclusive,
royalty-free, world-wide right and license under any Contributor
copyrights in this contribution to copy, publish, use, and modify the
contribution and to distribute the contribution under a BSD License or one
with more restrictive terms, as well as a right and license of the same
scope to any derivative works prepared by the W3C and based on, or
incorporating all or part of the contribution. The Contributor further
agrees that any derivative works of this contribution prepared by the W3C
shall be solely owned by the W3C.

The Contributor states, to the best of her/his knowledge, that she/he,
or the company she/he represents, has all rights necessary to contribute
the Materials.

W3C will retain attribution of initial authorship to the Contributor. The
W3C makes no a-priori commitment to support or distribute contributions.

THE CONTRIBUTION IS PROVIDED AS IS, AND CONTRIBUTORS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE;
THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE. CONTRIBUTORS
MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT THE CONTRIBUTION OR THE USE
THEREOF INDICATES CONFORMANCE TO A SPECIFICATION; CONTRIBUTIONS ARE PROVIDED
ONLY TO HELP REACHING INTEROPERABILITY.

Note: Contributions owned by the Mozilla Corporation go through a different
legal agreement due to Mozilla's membership in W3C.

What I'd like to do is to create

other-licenses/
|-w3c-css/
|-submitted/ # tests we are submitting to W3C, our copy is master
|-received/ # tests we are receiving from W3C, their copy is master

What is the process for setting this up?

~fantasai

Gervase Markham

unread,
Sep 27, 2011, 9:28:58 AM9/27/11
to mozill...@lists.mozilla.org
On 23/09/11 01:24, fantasai wrote:
> The dual-license that applies to the W3C tests:
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright
>
> The license grant that W3C requests of contributors to the test suite:
>
> The Contributor hereby grants to the W3C, a perpetual, non-exclusive,
> royalty-free, world-wide right and license under any Contributor
> copyrights in this contribution to copy, publish, use, and modify the
> contribution and to distribute the contribution under a BSD License or

The fact that this final word is an "or" and not an "and optionally" is
rather worrying.

But we do have a general principle that we contribute stuff upstream
under the licence used upstream. So that part is OK. We just need to
make sure that people who check in to this directory know what they are
doing. Given that in practice, I expect that you will be involved in all
checkins, I'm sure you can make sure that people are aware :-)

> What I'd like to do is to create
>
> other-licenses/
> |-w3c-css/
> |-submitted/ # tests we are submitting to W3C, our copy is
> master
> |-received/ # tests we are receiving from W3C, their copy is
> master
>
> What is the process for setting this up?

Straw man:

Just create it, and add a README to the "submitted" directory saying
"Files and modifications in this directory must be submitted under the
following licence grant:" and then a copy of what you quoted.

But I would file a bug to get legal sign-off on this plan.

Gerv

fantasai

unread,
Sep 29, 2011, 7:59:19 PM9/29/11
to mozill...@lists.mozilla.org
On 09/27/2011 06:28 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 23/09/11 01:24, fantasai wrote:
>> The dual-license that applies to the W3C tests:
>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright
>>
>> The license grant that W3C requests of contributors to the test suite:
>>
>> The Contributor hereby grants to the W3C, a perpetual, non-exclusive,
>> royalty-free, world-wide right and license under any Contributor
>> copyrights in this contribution to copy, publish, use, and modify the
>> contribution and to distribute the contribution under a BSD License or
>
> The fact that this final word is an "or" and not an "and optionally" is
> rather worrying.

Good point, I'll ask Rigo about it. On the plus side, it's a non-exclusive
license, not a copyright grant. So if the author chooses independently to
also license it under BSD, it's under BSD regardless.

> But we do have a general principle that we contribute stuff upstream
> under the licence used upstream. So that part is OK. We just need to
> make sure that people who check in to this directory know what they are
> doing. Given that in practice, I expect that you will be involved in all
> checkins, I'm sure you can make sure that people are aware :-)

Actually, my intention is to *avoid* being involved in most of these
checkins. :)

>> What I'd like to do is to create
>>
>> other-licenses/
>> |-w3c-css/
>> |-submitted/ # tests we are submitting to W3C, our copy is master
>> |-received/ # tests we are receiving from W3C, their copy is master
>>
>> What is the process for setting this up?
>
> Straw man:
>
> Just create it, and add a README to the "submitted" directory saying
> "Files and modifications in this directory must be submitted under the
> following licence grant:" and then a copy of what you quoted.

Sounds reasonable to me. :) I think we should toss in a LICENSE with the
appropriate BSD 3-clause into w3c-css/ as well.

> But I would file a bug to get legal sign-off on this plan.

Under which component would I file this bug?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?full=1
I've been staring at this list for awhile now, and can't find where it
should go...

~fantasai

Justin Dolske

unread,
Sep 30, 2011, 12:43:04 AM9/30/11
to mozill...@lists.mozilla.org
On 9/29/11 4:59 PM, fantasai wrote:

>> But I would file a bug to get legal sign-off on this plan.
>
> Under which component would I file this bug?

I would suggest Legal :: Copyright

Justin

fantasai

unread,
Oct 3, 2011, 8:48:09 PM10/3/11
to mozill...@lists.mozilla.org
The search for "Legal" on the page https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?full=1
turns up no results for me.

~fantasai

timeless

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 3:06:18 PM10/4/11
to fantasai, mozill...@lists.mozilla.org
Licensing is in the "mozilla.org" product...

On 10/3/11, fantasai <fantasa...@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 09/29/2011 09:43 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
> The search for "Legal" on the page
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?full=1
> turns up no results for me.
>
> ~fantasai
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list
> le...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

timeless

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 3:29:00 PM10/4/11
to Justin Dolske, mozill...@lists.mozilla.org
>From memory the actual Legal product is MoCo restricted or something.
You can probably see it because there's probably a subsection for
general mozilla corp stuff.

On 9/30/11, Justin Dolske <dol...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 9/29/11 4:59 PM, fantasai wrote:
>
>>> But I would file a bug to get legal sign-off on this plan.
>>
>> Under which component would I file this bug?
>
> I would suggest Legal :: Copyright
>
> Justin

fantasai

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 8:56:45 PM10/4/11
to mozill...@lists.mozilla.org
On 10/04/2011 12:06 PM, timeless wrote:
> Licensing is in the "mozilla.org" product...

Thanks. Filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=691950

~fantasai

timeless

unread,
Oct 9, 2011, 12:52:51 AM10/9/11
to Justin Dolske, mozill...@lists.mozilla.org
There is a component where @mozilla.com people can file corporate it
requests. Odds are you've used it. Bugzilla certainly supports this.

Similarly, as you're a corporation and have in house counsel, it makes
sense to be able to file a bug and talk to them.

As I'm not a MoCo employee, I'm not in a position to explain how that
product is configured. I am aware it exists as it has been mentioned
at times, but short of attacking bugzilla, it isn't worth my effort to
reverse engineer its precise shape :).

On 10/4/11, Justin Dolske <dol...@mozilla.com> wrote:


> On 10/3/11 5:48 PM, fantasai wrote:
>
>>>>> But I would file a bug to get legal sign-off on this plan.
>>>>
>>>> Under which component would I file this bug?
>>>
>>> I would suggest Legal :: Copyright
>>
>> The search for "Legal" on the page
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?full=1
>> turns up no results for me.
>

> Huh. Is it somehow restricted to @mozilla.com bugzilla accounts? That
> would be a bit surprising.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages