www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: a note about indirect contributions
Date Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:42:03 GMT
On Apr 22, 2008, at 10:56 AM, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2008, at 5:21 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
>> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> (to be perfectly clear, this is not the situation with  
>>>> Sourcesense and Microsoft)
>>> Agreed.  This particular scenario does not seem to directly apply  
>>> to Sourcesense and Microsoft.  Separately, Roy has posted on poi-dev
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/poi-dev/200804.mbox/% 
>>> 3c5D4680C0-1DF8-436B-8BBC-44CF62EBFBF9@gbiv.com%3e
>> I don't see evidence in that message for the assertion that this  
>> does not apply.  Roy states there that, "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".
>> So the bit of information I am missing is precisely what Microsoft  
>> has contracted with Sourcesense.  The press seems to imply the  
>> contract includes POI, doesn't it?
>> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/ 
>> mar08/03-25SourcesensePR.mspx
>> What am I missing?
> A long thread on dev@poi where the one and only relevant detail of  
> the agreement was posted: Sourcesense retains the copyright to  
> their contribution.

Please read my message again, Gianugo.  The CLAs are both copyright  
and patent
licensing agreements, and Contributor is well defined by those  
If you commit code that is covered by a Microsoft-controlled patent  
while you
are under contract with Microsoft to contribute to POI (no matter how  
that is specified by Microsoft), then you are licensing Microsoft's  
property as a joint Contributor.  If you don't have permission to do  
that from
Microsoft, then you are responsible for the resulting infringements  
-- not the
ASF and not anyone who later receives software from the ASF.  You are  
for ensuring that your contract with Microsoft is sufficient to allow  
you to
contribute under the ASF's CCLA.  Whether or not Microsoft also owns or
does not own the copyright is completely irrelevant -- it does not  
Microsoft from being a willing party in the Contribution and the  
license of necessary patent claims.

By issuing that PR, Microsoft has acknowledged their intention and  
for the technology to be a Contribution.  Sam, I suggest you print it  
out and
save it in our records, just in case.  Microsoft's clear intent to  
these technologies by "Donating code to an established, consensus-driven
organization such as the Apache Software Foundation" is more than enough
to stop any later claim of patent (monopoly) infringement.


DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message