W3C Community Contributor License Agreement

Together, the agreements form a two-step policy for people to make small commitments when work begins and broader commitments as soon as the work is mature. Both agreements contain provisions for both copyright and patent rights; see below for details. Agreements are concluded by participants and implementers (or other licensees). Under these agreements, W3C does not own patents or copyrights. Those who sign the agreements require unlicensed companies to implement the specifications to which the equipment has been contributed. The guidelines are not effective patent licenses, but requirements (such as the W3C Patent Directive) for each licence issued under the directive. The two-step policy therefore aims to facilitate the work of organisations, limit their licensing obligations during development and voluntarily commit themselves more fully to the Community at a later stage. This gives implementers some „patent protection“ during the design phase and the possibility of greater protection as soon as the specifications are stable. Please note that the CTC`s signature is a prerequisite for joining a group, but the signing of the SSA is voluntary. For the purposes of this definition, the normative parts of the specification are considered to be purely architectural and interoperable requirements.

Optional functions in the RFC 2119 sense are considered prescriptive unless explicitly identified as informative. Examples of implementation or other material that only illustrates the requirements of the specifications are more informative than normative. W3C Community and Business Groups offer people a place for pre-W3C standards. When people work together on specifications, they contribute to intellectual property (IP). One of the general objectives of this policy is to ensure that the specifications established under these guidelines can be implemented on the basis of a licence (RF). These guidelines are also intended to facilitate the participation of organizations or individuals with intellectual property rights. Thus, the reflections are to be taken into account: the CLA and the FSA have been designed in different ways to facilitate the work, move to the standard track W3C. In order to give IP infringement holders confidence that their licensing obligations extend only to the subjects they plan to engage, the directive contains several provisions to include the obligation in the scope. The CTC`s main scoping provisions are: I am encouraged to provide contact for licensing information and other relevant licensing information. This information is made available to the public. The FSA is structured in a similar way, but since it refers to a specific and immutable document, it does not contain any provisions relating to opt-out, modifications, etc.