poi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoli...@buni.org>
Subject Re: Is OOXML Inadvertantly Encumbered, and How to Resolve the Question.
Date Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:11:31 GMT
David Fisher wrote:

***snipping out all the bla bla not related to the actual matter at hand***

> 
> Here's how I would say it, and you can tell us if you think it gives us 
> a way to get the appropriate advice in order to resolve this issue.
> (We do care what you think, if stated constructively)
> 
> (1) Request that the ASF's legal counsel offer a legal opinion that the 
> MS contributions (Gianugo says these don't exist and are NOT MSFT's 
> contributions, you assert otherwise) via sourcesense can be legally 
> distributed and used under OSD/ASL compatible terms, OR

which made me seriously wonder if he'd done his homework (under the laws 
of most countries, and various international conventions) if you take 
their money for the work they own it unless you contractually say 
otherwise.  He clarified this with a much better worded definative 
statement.  This is enough for me on that point (but not the patent point).

> (2) Get Microsoft to explain their OSP in those terms including a "best 
> effort" to "conform" is covered by patent pledge, OR
> (3) Have Microsoft sign a CLA-C that covers sourcesense, or even better 
> any Microsoft contributions to Apache POI.
> 
> To me these are all reasonable assurances to seek, BUT with proper 
> consideration of Gianugo's statements, (1) is flawed and should be 
> replaced by:
> 
> (1a) Request that the ASF's legal counsel offer a legal opinion that 
> sourcesense's contributions can be legally distributed and used under 
> OSD/ASL compatible terms because their CLA-C is valid and there are no 
> MSFT patent issues, OR
> (1b) Request that the ASF's legal counsel offer a legal opinion that 
> even if MSFT patents are "broached" by sourcesense's contributions these 
> can be legally distributed and used used under OSD/ASL compatible terms 
> because their CLA-C is valid and the OSP truly covers any MSFT patent 
> issues, OR ...
> 
> Would you agree to proceed with the OOXML branch if any of 1a, 1b, 2, or 
> 3 are ultimately answered in the positive?
> 
> (I propose you should say something here.)
> 

I'll say whatever I want wherever I like.  If there is a public 
authoritative note showing everyone did their homework on this part that 
the patent promise is legally binding, "covers" includes "best effort" 
and we can even legally have it in the repository, do snapshot releases, 
all the stuff we've done all along and our users and developers are 
protected -- of course I'll withdraw my -1.

> 
> OOXML *IS* a branch and *IS* not released. I've not seen a vote to 
> release it, have you? Isn't that the time to vote -1?
>

No.  because I'm not convinced that we're not in patent peril by merely 
having it in the repository and doing occasional builds.  More than one 
system went in production by a random daily snapshot.

As I said none of my emails have emotional content other than 
frustration because until I started being more explicit you all just 
weren't listening.

** snip **

-- 
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.

Mime
View raw message