poi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Fisher <dfis...@jmlafferty.com>
Subject Re: Rejection of any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:00:48 GMT

On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:

> On Apr 22, 2008, at 10:44 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> "not considered (legally) with merit" is perhaps overstating it.  One
>> of the questions I specifically asked on legal-internal "Are there
>> additional agreements that we should be pursuing with Microsoft at
>> this time?".  I did not hear any objections and actually got an
>> indication that this was "a great idea".  And the impression I got
>> today from Andy was that this is all Andy is asking for.
> The "great idea" feedback from legal-internal is a legitimate answer  
> to a dubious question: given the choice, I bet very few would opt  
> for less clarity. However, am I the only one seeing a slippery slope  
> here? We are setting a dangerous precedent, basically saying that  
> the standard ASF procedures in terms of CCLA/ICLA might or might not  
> be sufficient according to some unknown criteria.
>> Based on prior conversations, I got the impression that a full CCLA  
>> would satisfy
>> Andy.
> I still need someone to explain me how the potential Microsoft CCLA  
> would be useful. Assuming there is no copyright contribution from  
> Microsoft, which grants of patent license would be applicable?
> "where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable  
> by You that are necessarily infringed by Your Contribution(s) alone  
> or by combination of Your Contribution(s) with the Work to which  
> such Contribution(s) were submitted."
> My very own recollection is that either we are all set via indirect  
> means (OSP and potential clarifications we might pursue with MS,  
> Estoppel, MS public statements), or we need something more. Problem  
> is, if the latter applies, that's unlikely to be a CCLA.

It seems to me that Andy's proposal according to Sam, and I may very  
well be putting words into their mouths. Could be summarized as:

A new category of Patent Grant needs to be added to http://www.apache.org/licenses/ 
  which would on some, as you say, unspecified occasions be required  
from an upstream partner of the CCLA. Something similar, but,  
different from a Software Grant.

It is certainly unclear about how to test for the requirement. I guess  
that would need to be part of the proposal to the ASF.

This is in contrast to the apparent message from the ASF that nothing  
is required because SourceSense has already asserted the rights via  
their CCLA. In which case the point has always been moot. And all is  
good, and all required homework was completed, and now, finally  
thoroughly discussed and double checked!

I think that Andy's is the next comment....


> Thanks,
> -- 
> Gianugo Rabellino
> Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
> Blogging at http://boldlyopen.com/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org

View raw message