poi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Rejection of any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:29:21 GMT
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:14 PM, David Fisher <dfisher@jmlafferty.com> wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
>  So where are we?
>
> > While Andy and I did not discuss this next part directly, it occurred
> > to me on the drive back home that what Andy is expressing is a desire
> > for something like we have with the current ICLA/CCLA split.  The ASF
> > requires ICLAs in all circumstances, and encourages (via section 4 of
> > the ICLA) CCLAs in certain circumstances.  We may be in a situation
> > where it would behoove us to pursue a separate patent grant in the
> > context of Contributions which are funded by third parties.
>
>  I wondered if either of you had read Roy T Fielding's post prior to the
> meeting.

We both had.

> > To be very specific, if SourceSense is indeed being contracted by
> > Microsoft for the purpose of contributing to POI, then Microsoft is
> > a Contributor and bound by the terms of our license agreements every
> > bit as much as SourceSense, even if Microsoft is not the copyright
> > owner of the Contributions being submitted.  There is no need for
> > an additional CCLA from Microsoft -- they are already bound by
> > the intent and actions of their own contract with SourceSense, and
> > it is SourceSense that must explain their own agreement with the
> > ASF to any entity that contracts with them.  It is SourceSense that
> > must have the necessary agreement in place to contribute some other
> > entity's intellectual property on their behalf.
> >
> > Our CLAs apply to both copyright and patent licensing.  Please
> > don't assume that we didn't anticipate indirect contributions
> > when our licenses were written and agreed to by all signers.
>
>  It seems to be on this same exact point. if I understand Roy correctly
> nothing needs to be done. Given Gianugo Rabellino's representations,
> Microsoft is bound and we are safe. Does Roy's response satisfy Andy?

No, Roy's response does not satisfy Andy.

As to whether or not anything 'needs' to be done, nothing in the law
is ever that binary until decided in a court, and even then decisions
are subject to being overturned.

There are cases where we need nothing more than the Apache License,
Version 2.0.  There are cases where we require an ICLA in addition to
the Apache License.  Similarly there are cases where a CCLA is
warranted in addtion to an ICLA.  In this case, Andy feels that we
need something more.  At the present time, Gianugo does not apparently
feel that is necessary.

>  There is no EULA issue like for Sender ID is there? I think no.

At the moment no.  If such were to ever occur in the future, I would
advocate that the function be pulled.  Such an action would be less
than pleasant for all involved.  Andy wants us to be more proactive in
preventing it.

>  As far as compliance with the whole spec - I saw on slashdot yesterday that
> MS Office 2007 OOXML is not compliant with their own standard. Do we need to
> seek clarification from MSFT about partial implementations of the spec. I
> think not.
>
>  For the rest of us, is the OSP sufficient? I think yes. Are we still
> seeking advice from legal?

The OSP concerns itself with implementations of a spec.  If it turns
out that in order to achieve interop, one must implement things not
covered by the spec, then the OSP does not cover that case.

- Sam Ruby

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


Mime
View raw message