You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@poi.apache.org by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org> on 2008/04/01 16:02:53 UTC
Re: Rejection of any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI
So the article is wrong? Microsoft is NOT *paying* source sense to do
this?
Nick Burch wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>> Your word has nothing to do with it. Work for hire by a software
>> patent holder in the area of the work for hire.
>
> But sourcesense didn't do their part of the ooxml support as
> work-for-hire though...
>
> Nick
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Rejection of any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI
Posted by Nick Burch <ni...@torchbox.com>.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 dfisher@jmlafferty.com wrote:
> Ooxml is a published "spec" in the process of becoming an ISO standard.
OSS watch have been looking into the ooxml patent issues, specifically for
POI. Their conclusion is that we're already covered by the OSP patent
grant, and that most of the apparent problems were actually down to poor
wording by Microsoft:
http://involve.jisc.ac.uk/wpmu/oss-watch/2008/04/09/microsoft-poi-and-odd-distinctions/
It looks very promising, as they feel we, and our downstream users, are
already covered.
Nick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
Re: Rejection of any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI
Posted by df...@jmlafferty.com.
Ooxml is a published "spec" in the process of becoming an ISO standard. Not a microsoft patent. At least that is my understanding.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:44:48
To:POI Developers List <de...@poi.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Rejection of any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI
Right but the result won't be open source. The patent holder is using a
third party to implement its patent and will be free to require the
end-users to purchase licenses. After the patent holder that is hiring
a third party to implement its patent which it will then potentially
require non-OSD compliant licensing on, then my objection will be
removed. Why is this such a big issue? Ask them to sign the CLA-C and
then all basis are covered and my -1 will no longer hold.
-Andy
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
>
> On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>> So the article is wrong? Microsoft is NOT *paying* source sense to do
>> this?
>
> That's not the point. The point is whose copyright is the software being
> developed. And it is not Microsoft's, it's Sourcesense's, who then
> licenses to Apache via (C)CLAs.
>
> Unfortunately, there are only so many times I can repeat this.
>
> Ciao,
>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Rejection of any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Right but the result won't be open source. The patent holder is using a
third party to implement its patent and will be free to require the
end-users to purchase licenses. After the patent holder that is hiring
a third party to implement its patent which it will then potentially
require non-OSD compliant licensing on, then my objection will be
removed. Why is this such a big issue? Ask them to sign the CLA-C and
then all basis are covered and my -1 will no longer hold.
-Andy
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
>
> On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>> So the article is wrong? Microsoft is NOT *paying* source sense to do
>> this?
>
> That's not the point. The point is whose copyright is the software being
> developed. And it is not Microsoft's, it's Sourcesense's, who then
> licenses to Apache via (C)CLAs.
>
> Unfortunately, there are only so many times I can repeat this.
>
> Ciao,
>
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: Rejection of any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@apache.org>.
On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> So the article is wrong? Microsoft is NOT *paying* source sense to
> do this?
That's not the point. The point is whose copyright is the software
being developed. And it is not Microsoft's, it's Sourcesense's, who
then licenses to Apache via (C)CLAs.
Unfortunately, there are only so many times I can repeat this.
Ciao,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Blogging at http://boldlyopen.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org