You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com> on 2012/05/02 06:34:15 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
I trust that the Patent issues raised by Rob Weir on this mailing-list in
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3COF1A1F1F97.0BA57C1E-ON852578A4.004EC606-852578A4.004FC4FE@lotus.com%3E
have been disclosed and addressed to the satisfaction of the IPMC ?
Norbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
Posted by Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
>if IBM (and Rob) know of an IP issue in the code base
This is not a _if_ there is an affirmative public statement by Rob
that this the case
> The fact that there has been no such revelation has to be sufficient at this point.
But there was such 'revelation', and at the time this was punted as a
'problem to be address later while doing IP diligence prior to
release"
>
> If you want to see proof of negatives,
No, I'm merely pointing out that Rob/IBM claimed to have such
knowledge. An affirmative statement. So either such statement was
truthful, and it should be easy for the PPMC to make sure that the
undisclosed problems alleged to exist have been fixed, or this
statement was not truthful.
Norbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
@Norbert,
It seems more direct to ask Rob what he was thinking of when he made that post last June.
I can imagine two kinds of remediation that might have happened or be needed with respect to Symphony:
1. Perhaps IBM detected IP issues in the OO.o code base they received under license from Sun and they cleaned out those IP problems in their customization. That means there is potentially an IP problem that remains in the AOO and the LO code bases. It is not clear that it has anything to do with IP that IBM possesses, although it could have. They would have had no reason to work around their own IP for their own use in Symphony though.
2. Perhaps IBM relied on IP that they had owned or licensed in the customization they did. Before committing Symphony improvements to AOO, they need to "remediate" those to have it be clean.
Note that there is no issue with regard to IBM IP in a contribution from IBM, since contribution to ODF under the OASIS IP regime for ODF and to Apache under the rules of iCLAs and SGAs grants a license to those patents. Of course, IBM could remove those dependencies on essential claims anyhow and avoid licensing.
I don't see how any of this impacts the just-concluded vote to approve release of Apache OpenOffice (incubating) 3.4.
If you are worrying about being submarined, I think a bigger concern is that there may be unexploded landmines in the existing LO and original OO.o codebases. It still has nothing to do with what IP clearance means here. However, if IBM (and Rob) know of an IP issue in the code base that won't be detected in how IP clearance was accomplished, there is an obligation to report it. The fact that there has been no such revelation has to be sufficient at this point.
If you want to see proof of negatives, I suggest that you conduct that plowing in your own fields. Or try groklaw, perhaps, where there is a willing chorus of believers and supportable facts are not required.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthiebaud@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 23:21
To: general@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I have no reason to believe that the remediation Rob speaks of has anything to do with any part of OpenOffice.org.
You mean except for Rob's own statement ?
"But one thing not to lose track of is that Symphony has done IP
remediation at many levels. Where we've worked around things, we'll be
able to contribute our **fixes** **back**." (emphasis mine)
How can you logically conclude that Rob is not talking about
remediation in the OOo code-base ?
So unless such remediation was indeed done also in the to-be-released
AOO code, then the PPMC would be knowingly releasing patent traps.
Either that or Rob's above statement was pure FUD.
Norbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
Posted by Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I have no reason to believe that the remediation Rob speaks of has anything to do with any part of OpenOffice.org.
You mean except for Rob's own statement ?
"But one thing not to lose track of is that Symphony has done IP
remediation at many levels. Where we've worked around things, we'll be
able to contribute our **fixes** **back**." (emphasis mine)
How can you logically conclude that Rob is not talking about
remediation in the OOo code-base ?
So unless such remediation was indeed done also in the to-be-released
AOO code, then the PPMC would be knowingly releasing patent traps.
Either that or Rob's above statement was pure FUD.
Norbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I have no reason to believe that the remediation Rob speaks of has anything to do with any part of OpenOffice.org. I would presume it matters with regard to the IP of IBM or others licensed by IBM that may apply to Symphony content beyond whatever OpenOffice.org code they started with.
With regard to OASIS Standard ODF, of course, there is already the IP regime that applies to IBM as a contributor, just as for Sun Microsystems and Oracle. There is also the Oracle SGA.
So, do you have knowledge of a specific IP conflict that Apache OpenOffice.org is subject to that is somehow not applicable to LibreOffice and its inheritance from OpenOffice.org ?
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthiebaud@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 22:31
To: general@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> @Norbert,
>
> I don't see any mention of patent issues in that message.
it says:
"But one thing not to lose track of is that Symphony has done IP
remediation at many levels. Where we've worked around things, we'll be
able to contribute our fixes back. [..](I'm talking patents)
Symphony is based on OOo so 'remediation' would have to be
'remediation' to the OOo code base, which is the code base of AOO. So
presumably the Allege Patent issues where in OOo and possibly are
still in AOO... furthermore they could not have been Sun/Oracle
Patent, otherwise they would have been covered by LGPLv3, so the
Oracle SGA does not help there...
>
> If you know of a specific IP difficulty, I am sure that the AOO PPMC and the IPMC would appreciate having sufficient details to be able to confirm the consequences.
I am not the one that claimed that there was such IP difficulty, I'm
just reminding everyone that Rob claimed at the beginning of the
project that such difficulties and I quote: " I know with certainty
that we've fixed things."
At the time these issue have been pushed aside as irrelevant to the
admission of the project in the incubator, and that such concerned
would be addressed in due time prior to Release...
>
> What do you have in mind?
Since I have not seen any discussion or patch related to that topic, I
must have missed them. Hence my inquiry.
Norbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
Posted by Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> @Norbert,
>
> I don't see any mention of patent issues in that message.
it says:
"But one thing not to lose track of is that Symphony has done IP
remediation at many levels. Where we've worked around things, we'll be
able to contribute our fixes back. [..](I'm talking patents)
Symphony is based on OOo so 'remediation' would have to be
'remediation' to the OOo code base, which is the code base of AOO. So
presumably the Allege Patent issues where in OOo and possibly are
still in AOO... furthermore they could not have been Sun/Oracle
Patent, otherwise they would have been covered by LGPLv3, so the
Oracle SGA does not help there...
>
> If you know of a specific IP difficulty, I am sure that the AOO PPMC and the IPMC would appreciate having sufficient details to be able to confirm the consequences.
I am not the one that claimed that there was such IP difficulty, I'm
just reminding everyone that Rob claimed at the beginning of the
project that such difficulties and I quote: " I know with certainty
that we've fixed things."
At the time these issue have been pushed aside as irrelevant to the
admission of the project in the incubator, and that such concerned
would be addressed in due time prior to Release...
>
> What do you have in mind?
Since I have not seen any discussion or patch related to that topic, I
must have missed them. Hence my inquiry.
Norbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
@Norbert,
I don't see any mention of patent issues in that message. Since Symphony-related contributions have not occurred yet, they certainly are irrelevant to the release of Apache OpenOffice (incubating) 3.4.0. It is a good thing that IBM will ensure there is no encumbrance in anything that they contribute under an IBM SGA.
In any case, unlike the situation with the simple declarations used by many copyleft projects, iCLAs and SGAs provide clear declarations concerning patents as does the ALv2 itself.
If you know of a specific IP difficulty, I am sure that the AOO PPMC and the IPMC would appreciate having sufficient details to be able to confirm the consequences.
What do you have in mind?
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthiebaud@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 21:34
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
I trust that the Patent issues raised by Rob Weir on this mailing-list in
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3COF1A1F1F97.0BA57C1E-ON852578A4.004EC606-852578A4.004FC4FE@lotus.com%3E
have been disclosed and addressed to the satisfaction of the IPMC ?
Norbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org