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: Rejection of any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:23:52 GMT
Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> 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.
>>  So where does that put things then? If the opinion of the
>>  legal-cmmt is that, although Andy's concerns are understood
>>  and appreciated, they are not considered (legally) with merit,
>>  then what happens with the veto? Does that "invalidate" it
>>  due to the technical reasons for the veto not being applicable?
> "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.


> Of course, the devil is in the details.  I'd like to see this scoped
> as narrowly as possible.  It should define "You" and "Contribution" in
> a manner consistent with the current CCLA, and should define a patent
> Grant consistent with section 3 of the CCLA.  Based on prior
> conversations, I got the impression that a full CCLA would satisfy
> Andy.

okay.  mostly the CCLA Nick explained in a way that I have come very 
close to understanding on why it would not really do anything.  This 
seems to be a contended point.

Roy's message I really didn't get.  If I pay you to do some work for me 
in the garden then you are then authorized to sell my house?

> As I see it, the ball is in Andy's court, as it were.  If he does
> pursue drafting such an agreement, I can not guarantee that the ASF
> would approve the agreement, or that Microsoft would sign it, or that
> POI would chose not to proceed in the event that Microsoft did not
> chose to sign the agreement.

I will do so and confer as you suggested.  I will delay any rash action 
until I feel that I've no recourse.  This is no longer the case.

> On the other hand, I gave Andy specific pointers, indicated that there
> does seem to be some openness to the idea, and indicated that I would
> help.
> So, while I can not predict the future, the one thing that Andy can
> not say is that he has hit a dead end just yet.  And Andy realizes
> that he is part of an all volunteer organization, and indicated his
> continued willingness to devote time and effort towards resolving this
> issue.


> Again, if I am now overstating anything Andy might have said to me at
> lunch, he is welcome to correct me.

I just want to clarify that I had no particular opinion on the CCLA 
thing.  By my read it would work.  Nick explains why he thinks it 
wouldn't and I nearly understand.  I'll get clarification here.  I only 
care that we have sufficient patent grants to cover the work microsof t 
is funding through sourcesense.

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

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

View raw message