incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: working on a OpenOffice roadmap
Date Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:01:18 GMT
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:12 AM, Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 13:40 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> Since Sun had control of the Bugzilla instance, then anything you (a
>> non-Sun member of the public) can see was "accepted" and "made
>> available under the OpenOffice.org open source project".
>
>        I don't believe that to be the case. I'm also fairly certain that
> as/when/if the JCA rational and intention is investigated in court, it
> will be discovered that the two distinct phases: 'deliver' & 'accept for
> incorporation' were teased apart for some real reason: presumably to
> avoid having to distribute any arbitrary 'delivered' submission under
> the project license - such having to incorporate all of the Solaris code
> into the OpenOffice.org open source project when some clown attaches it
> to a bug.
>
>        In my experience lawyers don't tend to add pointless distinctions into

In your experience with lawyers, did they ever teach you to misquote
and/or modify the legal language in order to bolster your arguments?
I assume not.  You've invented new language in the JCA.  It never said
"accept for incorporation" as you have just quoted.  There is a comma
there, in the JCA, between 'accept' and 'for'.  Punctuation is
significant. (It is the same in C++, yes, if you leave out a
semicolon?)   In particular, a comma can mark a nonrestrictive clause
or a parenthetical in this case since "and Sun has accepted" is set
off by two commas.

-Rob

Mime
View raw message