[open-web-discuss] Proper way to launch a spec under OWFa?

[Will Meyer]

Hi all. A group of us have had a spec available under a
creatively-named "TBD" license for a while, primarily due to a lack of
clarity over the "proper" way to launch with the OWFa. I'd like to
clear up some questions once and for all so we can move ahead -- your
guidance would be very much appreciated.

http://wiki.openwebfoundation.org/How_to_use_the_agreement has several
guidelines that we've reviewed, and I'm aware of recent discussion
w.r.t. the Open Graph Protocol's use of the agreement. I'm attempting
to navigate/rectify the legal language in the OWF documents with its
current practical application in terms of signed copies, hard-version
numbers, boilerplate language in the specs themselves, etc., as well
as how we should navigate that split.

What I propose to do is as follows:
- obtain signatures from the core contributors, on a version that we
will call 0.8, which we expect to apply to ALL "working drafts" of
that version, including future drafts. This is not the same as the
"version it to 1.0 and lock it" model suggested by the documents, but
its also not the "there's no actual version besides a date" model in
seemingly wide use
- make the signature doc (pdf) avail on the spec site
- include the boilerplate language from the OWF wiki in the spec
itself (the complete language, not the ad-hoc version)
- only when we intend to move to a new major.minor version will be
re-obtain signatures from the contributors; this will be a while
(hopefully).

Does anyone foresee any problems with this approach?

Gracias,

W

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group.

To post to this group, send email to open-web...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en?hl=en

[David Recordon]

Hey Will,

That approach sounds fine, but obviously has issues scaling depending on the number of contributors and rate of new revisions. I really hope to see a lighter weight way to apply the OWFa in a similar fashion to open source code licenses.

Some people have also used services like Agree2.com in the past for managing electronic signatures.

--David

[Will Meyer]

Thanks David. Will look into ways to keep the signing process simple,
so we can keep the idea of the signed agreement.

W

On May 5, 1:06 am, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Will,
> That approach sounds fine, but obviously has issues scaling depending on the
> number of contributors and rate of new revisions. I really hope to see a
> lighter weight way to apply the OWFa in a similar fashion to open source
> code licenses.
>
> Some people have also used services like Agree2.com in the past for managing
> electronic signatures.
>
> --David
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Will Meyer <w...@willmeyer.com> wrote:
> > Hi all.  A group of us have had a spec available under a
> > creatively-named "TBD" license for a while, primarily due to a lack of
> > clarity over the "proper" way to launch with the OWFa.  I'd like to
> > clear up some questions once and for all so we can move ahead -- your
> > guidance would be very much appreciated.
>

> >http://wiki.openwebfoundation.org/How_to_use_the_agreementhas several

> > open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com<open-web-discuss%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

>
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en?hl=en
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group.
>
> To post to this group, send email to open-web...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com
>

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en?hl=en