On Friday, December 15, 2006, 4:34:27 AM, ddailey wrote: d> Assumption 5 of 5:
d> 5. The copyright notice (that appears on at least some of these) d> is just to make sure that the stuff doesn't mutate over time. A d> creative commons license would have accomplished much the same d> purpose. That is, no one is likely to challenge divergent national d> treatments of fair use in international courts over use of such d> material in, for example, a classroom setting? I see Antoine covered some of these already so let me address this one. Yes, the intention is to prevent anyone changing the tests and then claiming that the changed test is still the W3C SVG test suite. (As an example, a vendor who altered the tests so that they passed more of them. ) Or, indeed, removing the W3C copyright notice and selling on the modified test suite as their own. (Thats also why each test slide includes the cvs revision number, so we can check the test and the reference PMNG are from the exact same version of the test). Also, the tests themselves (the svg files) and the test harnesses (html or svg files used to navigate between tests, display information about the test, etc) have different licenses. The tests can't be changed. the harnesses can be hacked around as you wish or discarded and a different harness used. For example, an implementor might like a harness that displays their current rendering from todays daily build, the reference PNG, and a third PNG which is their rendering from the last released build (to check for regressions in their code). Or, someone might make a script that loads the tests one by one. Or compares the result bit-by-bit with the last released rendering on the same platform with the same fonts. If someone wants to look at the source of the tests (well, we would expect they would do that) or use the code as an example and modify it to do something similar that they want to do - that's fine, as long as the modified code does not claim to be a W3C SVG test suite test. Note in passing that the way some of the tests are written is non-obvious - they are designed to test a particular feature and in some cases are deliberately fragile, giving multiple opportunities to get the rendering wrong. Its the opposite of 'graceful degradation'. So they are not necessarily good real-world examples. -- Chris Lilley mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG ----- To unsubscribe send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click "edit my membership" ---- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
