Update CLA and License agreement #438
Conversation
|
|
||
| This repository is being used for work in the Web Media Text Tracks Community Group, governed by the [W3C Community License | ||
| Agreement (CLA)](http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/). To contribute, you must join |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I disagree with removing the CLA and CG reference. It encourages people that cannot join the W3C to participate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As a W3C specification on the REC track, I do not see why WebVTT should be subject to a CLA different than other W3C specifications on the REC track. The CG can create a separate repo if it wants to work on something other then the specification on the REC track.
| This repository is being used for work in the Web Media Text Tracks Community Group, governed by the [W3C Community License | ||
| Agreement (CLA)](http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/). To contribute, you must join | ||
| the CG. | ||
| Contributions to this repository are intended to become part of Recommendation-track documents governed by the W3C Patent Policy and Document License. To contribute, you must either participate in the [Timed Text Working Group](https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/) or make a non-member patent licensing commitment. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You don't have to participate in the TTWG to make a contribution and the CLA above already makes a non-member patent licensing commitment.
There is far less legal conflict between the way that the CG works and the way the WGs work than you think. I disagree with making this a TTWG-only repository.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You don't have to participate in the TTWG to make a contribution and the CLA above already makes a non-member patent licensing commitment.
The same is true for IMSC: anyone can make a contribution, bound to the W3C CLA.
dwsinger
dismissed
their stale review
we need to identify that a common repo is used for both CG and WG
|
The non-member patent licensing requirements that you are requesting people to make is already sorted in the CG. Why would we make it harder for others to contribute when it has worked well in the past? Other Working Groups are embracing this style of working also. In fact, you might want to consider introducing this for other TTWG work also, seeing as some new work is happening in CGs. |
|
The key here is to avoid creating forks, since that has caused trouble in other WGs. We should not go backwards on a model that has worked well and make it worse. |
The idea is for the CLA to require upfront a commitment from contributors that is compatible with Rec Track documents.