License for the tests

[xfq]

License for the tests

[iherman]

Oops. Thanks @xfq for spotting that. What happened is that I used the automatic procedure to set up a new W3C repository (which included a "contributing" file) and I never checked this. My mistake.

Indeed, the tests are not recommendation track documents. Note, however, that the tests themselves (which are individual epub instances) are published under the Software and Document Licenses (see, e.g., https://github.com/w3c/epub-tests/blob/main/tests/cnt-svg-css/EPUB/package.opf). This is necessary for the particularities of the EPUB testing procedure.

I am still on vacations this week, but I will take care of it next week (unless sometimes beats me into it).

P.S. @plehegar it may make sense to modify the repo manager to offer different types of "contributing" files...

[xfq]

Thanks, Ivan. BTW, in package.json it's the ISC License.

[iherman]

Thanks, Ivan. BTW, in package.json it's the ISC License.

That is all right. The package.json is for the script that runs as a github action and that produces the readable reports.

[plehegar]

Catching up here.

The license for WPT is not a W3C license. It is using its own on purpose (long story short: WPT is not under W3C by design).

As linked above, https://github.com/w3c/licenses/ contains the diverse licenses used by W3C on Github but there is only one license recommended for test suites nowadays.

As such, the repo manager shouldn't give a choice but rather should ask the usage of the future repo. At the moment, we only support creating REC-track repositories through that tool.