You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@poi.apache.org by df...@jmlafferty.com on 2008/04/16 16:01:46 UTC
Re: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection ofany ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
Hi Andy,
I have a question, you've said you are software developer and not a diplomat, when did you find time to get a law degree? If you have a JD where did you get it, and where did you pass the bar? If you don't, have you actually discussed these issues recently with a lawyer specializing in intellectual property? If so, have you done so recently?
As you can tell from these discussions this is a subtle issue, seek advice. To me it looks like you against the rest of us.
Btw - you voted -1 before apachecon.
With All Due Respect,
Dave
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:14:27
To:POI Developers List <de...@poi.apache.org>
Subject: Re: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection of
any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@buni.org> wrote:
>> Wow. I complied with your request to explain patents that OOXML is
>> encumbered with and you're going to completely disregard them! Okay my -1
>> stands, I will revert the commits at the end of the week. You will now have
>> to revoke my commit privs to prevent that from happening. No matter WHAT I
>> offer you appear to disregard them without even putting in half the time I
>> put into the matter. So we return to an impasse since discussion seems a
>> bit pointless.
>
> I am continuing to devote time and effort to this. But as I discussed
> with you last night via IM, I do not want a list of patents that the
> holder may only have for defensive purposes. But I don't want to say
> more than that at this time as you consistently have been avoiding
> answering certain questions of mine and others, and consistently have
> been misinterpreting or only partially complying with requests.
>
And you said you didn't require me to do anything FAST (I didn't say
*no*, I said "ask me later" because there are like 5 of you and 1 of
me). I also have to PROVE motivations! Every time I comply you move
the goal post.
I hold the patents are sufficient to justify it. My -1 holds, if the
commits aren't reverted, I will revert them. So you will need to
revoke my commit privs to prevent that.
> - 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
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection ofany
ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
dfisher@jmlafferty.com wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> I appreciate your point of view, I feel in the same position, but when he hints that we should pull the graphics parts then he threatens to destroy 3 plus years of work that the US based company I own a piece of has contributed to the project through a valid CLA-C, through our WFH arrangements with the Russian based company that Yegor (who is now release manager) has provided?
>
Do me a big favor. Read more carefully and don't put words in my mouth.
I got a list of patents to answer Sam and analyzed what was there or
not. So rather than help me prove this is in the clear (which I put
that it was questionable), you're going to assume I mean something ill
because it counters YOUR interests?
And to be clear I may have mis-abbreviated (which is why I favor
abandoning the 3-4 letter 'this sucks' acronym style that was started as
a joke by me because marc wouldn't help me name things and I'm bad at
it). I meant to say the drawing windows drawing format escher stuff in
HSSF (which isn't what I pointed at). Even I don't remember what all of
our abbreviations mean nor can I keep them straight :-) Sorry for the
confusion, but your participation is flawed. This should be about how
to protect POI not "oh if andy says something I have an interest in may
have legal issues that we need to address and at worst case pull then he
should be removed".
> I think not!
>
> It does not appear to me that there is any serious concern by the ASF that this will be a problem. Nick has done his homework, much effort and treasure has been expended. He is putting business at risk!
>
And your analysis is (per the above) a bit skewed.
> I am willing to take his threat as a +1 vote by him to revoke his commit status! He asked for that 3 times today!
>
it isn't a threat.
> I thank him for founding the project, but it is open source and he can't take back his donation.
>
> Dave
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net>
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:26:47
> To:"POI Developers List" <de...@poi.apache.org>, dfisher@jmlafferty.com
> Subject: Re: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection ofany ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:01 AM, <df...@jmlafferty.com> wrote:
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> I have a question, you've said you are software developer and not a diplomat, when did you find time to get a law degree? If you have a JD where did you get it, and where did you pass the bar? If you don't, have you actually discussed these issues recently with a lawyer specializing in intellectual property? If so, have you done so recently?
>>
>> As you can tell from these discussions this is a subtle issue, seek advice. To me it looks like you against the rest of us.
>>
>> Btw - you voted -1 before apachecon.
>
> A few points of order. For starters, I too have not passed any bar.
> But I would support the efforts of any committer who acted to either
> prevent or minimize any imminent legal danger or security exposure.
> Even if they were acting alone. Of course, I would expect them to be
> fully prepared to justify their actions afterwards. Such an action
> would not be a veto, and perhaps Andy mischaracterized it as such.
> Such a mischaracterization is not something I am concerned with at the
> moment.
>
> The question in the forefront of my mind is whether or not there is
> any imminent danger, legal or otherwise, which would justify any
> committer to contemplate making such a destructive act?
>
> If Andy is merely attempting to draw attention to a topic that he
> considers important, then I would agree with him that he is no
> diplomat.
>
> - 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
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
Re: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection ofany ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@buni.org> wrote:
> Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
>
> > doors with references to Apachecon conversation, when it's clear that he's
> been the first one to talk to various people around without mentioning that
> to us.
>
> No be clear I only im'd sam to say "be patient and will this answer your
> email"
People should not be afraid to talk to one another. In particular,
events like ApacheCon are expressedly designed to facilitate
communication.
Talk is one thing, but decisions are another. Decisions should alway
be made in ways that enable everyone to participate. As the ASF, that
means that decisions are typically made on mailing lists.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
Re: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection ofany
ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
>
> Add at least another couple of people you have been talking to (I know
> because they came to me with a "Spoke to Andy. POI, WTF?"), and that's a
> more accurate picture.
>
That was really substantive? I wanted to know where your head was...had
nothing to do with any decisions about the project. Now THAT was my OMG
POI is now one of those communities to be addressed through press
releases.
>> So there is or MAY BE a patent boogyman hiding in the closet and you
>> took his money and may not have asked for the rights to do what you're
>> doing in return. I'm sorry that you were sloppy or naive and that you
>> don't see it right now, but you were.
>
> This is a very questionable statement. You are entitled to your opinion,
> of course, but the moment you start saying that I have been
> unprofessional (the moment you act on your professional capacity, this
> is what sloppy really means in my book), well, I think you should at
> least provide evidence that goes beyond your opinion, given that a
> number of people here seem to think that's not the case. I hope you
> realize, despite your "email sucks" disclaimer, that words have a clear
> meaning, and that reputation is something I value a lot. I'm not going
> to leave this comment of yours unchallenged.
>
Do better and then I won't point it out.
>> I don't blame you for that. I blame you for just dismissing my
>> concerns out of hand
>
> I think that 52+22 messages (and counting!) are quite far from anything
> like "dismissing out of hand". At a very least, I hope you will
> recognize that I (and others) have been responsive to your comments. We
> just got to a point where it's about opinions, really: a lot of people
> seem to believe (in different shades of grey) we don't need anything
> more that what we've currently got, you happen to vehemently disagree. I
> do believe that, from a community perspective, you should just
> understand what the majority is all about, and the possibility that not
> everyone here might be sloppy in their judgement. I do believe that you
> should revert to a -0.99, and keep pushing to have as much clarity as
> possible. As I said, I see as a value having a pain in the backside that
> double checks what we are doing. If you still want to go nuclear, then
> it's fully your choice, but I won't allow you to say that (a) homework
> hasn't been done - you just happen not to like it and (b) that we're not
> talking to you.
>
No. Do due diligence or I want to do the most visible thing I can to
point out that you didn't and I want to do the most visible thing I can
to make sure people know what they're getting into. Its not clear and
that you're not sufficiently paranoid is even worse.
-Andy
> 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: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection ofany ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@apache.org>.
On Apr 17, 2008, at 2:42 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
>> doors with references to Apachecon conversation, when it's clear
>> that he's been the first one to talk to various people around
>> without mentioning that to us.
>>
>
> No be clear I only im'd sam to say "be patient and will this answer
> your email" (he is welcome to post it) and Nick to say "I will
> answer you when I've access to my other email account, I'm behind a
> firewall". I WILL answer the intent issue IF you start listening
> to me and stop being dismissive, but you've convinced me that it is
> a waste of my time.
Add at least another couple of people you have been talking to (I
know because they came to me with a "Spoke to Andy. POI, WTF?"), and
that's a more accurate picture.
> So there is or MAY BE a patent boogyman hiding in the closet and
> you took his money and may not have asked for the rights to do what
> you're doing in return. I'm sorry that you were sloppy or naive
> and that you don't see it right now, but you were.
This is a very questionable statement. You are entitled to your
opinion, of course, but the moment you start saying that I have been
unprofessional (the moment you act on your professional capacity,
this is what sloppy really means in my book), well, I think you
should at least provide evidence that goes beyond your opinion, given
that a number of people here seem to think that's not the case. I
hope you realize, despite your "email sucks" disclaimer, that words
have a clear meaning, and that reputation is something I value a lot.
I'm not going to leave this comment of yours unchallenged.
> I don't blame you for that. I blame you for just dismissing my
> concerns out of hand
I think that 52+22 messages (and counting!) are quite far from
anything like "dismissing out of hand". At a very least, I hope you
will recognize that I (and others) have been responsive to your
comments. We just got to a point where it's about opinions, really: a
lot of people seem to believe (in different shades of grey) we don't
need anything more that what we've currently got, you happen to
vehemently disagree. I do believe that, from a community perspective,
you should just understand what the majority is all about, and the
possibility that not everyone here might be sloppy in their
judgement. I do believe that you should revert to a -0.99, and keep
pushing to have as much clarity as possible. As I said, I see as a
value having a pain in the backside that double checks what we are
doing. If you still want to go nuclear, then it's fully your choice,
but I won't allow you to say that (a) homework hasn't been done - you
just happen not to like it and (b) that we're not talking to you.
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
Re: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection ofany
ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> doors with references to Apachecon conversation, when it's clear that
> he's been the first one to talk to various people around without
> mentioning that to us.
>
No be clear I only im'd sam to say "be patient and will this answer your
email" (he is welcome to post it) and Nick to say "I will answer you
when I've access to my other email account, I'm behind a firewall". I
WILL answer the intent issue IF you start listening to me and stop being
dismissive, but you've convinced me that it is a waste of my time.
> If, instead of all that, he'd worded his initial message as a legitimate
> concern we could all address , things would have been a lot different
> right now. But this is Andy C. Oliver, love him or hate him. I hate his
> attitude, but I have a deep respect for him and I'm still confident
> about his integrity (too bad he doesn't believe the same about me, but I
> will survive). I think losing him would be a bad thing no matter what.
>
And I'll not go quietly because I want to make sure everyone knows what
they're getting into if they use your work if you don't work with me here.
> Anyway, we have to deal with a problem now. My position at the moment is
> that I would hate to lose Andy. Not because he's the project founder (I
> couldn't care less, as he's been gone for quite some time now), but
> because I do believe there is a need for a cautious and possibly
> challenging position to double check we don't make mistakes on what's a
> potentially slippery slope. However, if he goes ahead and tears down the
> OOXML branch, I will be definitely starting a discussion to remove his
> privileges, but not because of the issue at hand but because I believe
> he (a) has a more than questionable right to a veto on these issues
> which should probably go by majority vote, (b) a veto a few months down
> the road has no meaning anyways and (c) I'm not willing to accept a
> blanket veto: if he's unhappy with some code, he should point out what
> the infringing code is and exactly why, so that we can take action. He
> should also allow the community to discuss the issues at hand, and talk
> about actual stuff instead than generic patent bogeyman, call for a
> vote, gauge the community reaction, then decide what to do, be it noting
> his dissent for a later "hah, told you so", stick to his veto and see
> where that brings us, or just fork POI.
>
right, if you're not going to work with me to get the full patent grant
from Microsoft that you need to do this work safely and protect our
users and selves, then this is where we'll be headed (I will fully
revert the OOXML piece). I don't plan to veto on a piece mail basis.
Microsoft has time to file more patents and some of the patents were
published YEARS after they were filed. I identified some because Sam
asked (then decided I had to prove intent too which is impossible but I
can show Microsoft has used patents to damage open source in the past).
So there is or MAY BE a patent boogyman hiding in the closet and you
took his money and may not have asked for the rights to do what you're
doing in return. I'm sorry that you were sloppy or naive and that you
don't see it right now, but you were. I don't blame you for that. I
blame you for just dismissing my concerns out of hand which makes me
want to just "press the button" and get it over with. So if you will
work with me to get the grants we avoid all of this. If not, then
sometime between now and Monday, I'll start reverting. Then you can
start your process too.
...Or as I said, work with me on the patent grant even if you think I'm
paranoid. Ball's in your court.
> 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: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection ofany ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
Posted by Gianugo Rabellino <gi...@apache.org>.
On Apr 16, 2008, at 7:26 PM, dfisher@jmlafferty.com wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> I appreciate your point of view, I feel in the same position, but
> when he hints that we should pull the graphics parts then he
> threatens to destroy 3 plus years of work that the US based company
> I own a piece of has contributed to the project through a valid CLA-
> C, through our WFH arrangements with the Russian based company that
> Yegor (who is now release manager) has provided?
>
> I think not!
>
> It does not appear to me that there is any serious concern by the
> ASF that this will be a problem. Nick has done his homework, much
> effort and treasure has been expended. He is putting business at risk!
>
> I am willing to take his threat as a +1 vote by him to revoke his
> commit status! He asked for that 3 times today!
Dave,
believe me, I hear your frustration. Unfortunately, I think the
situation has got to a point where it would be very hard for either
party to back off without the feeling of having lost. It's a bit of
all of nothing, and I put the blame for this on Andy who, among other
stuff such as providing answers to the question he's been asked,
should just stop hiding behind stuff as the developer/diplomat issues
and take responsibility for the confrontational attitude he's been
using since day 1.
I just wish he refrained from a preemptive -1 strike, and we could
have definitely had more progress if he didn't explicit accuse us of
being sloppy, if he didn't forward a private@poi e-mail to dev, if he
didn't scream about Sourcesense bribing a reputable source for help,
if he didn't wail about us not airing things in the open talking
behind closed doors with references to Apachecon conversation, when
it's clear that he's been the first one to talk to various people
around without mentioning that to us.
If, instead of all that, he'd worded his initial message as a
legitimate concern we could all address , things would have been a
lot different right now. But this is Andy C. Oliver, love him or hate
him. I hate his attitude, but I have a deep respect for him and I'm
still confident about his integrity (too bad he doesn't believe the
same about me, but I will survive). I think losing him would be a bad
thing no matter what.
Anyway, we have to deal with a problem now. My position at the moment
is that I would hate to lose Andy. Not because he's the project
founder (I couldn't care less, as he's been gone for quite some time
now), but because I do believe there is a need for a cautious and
possibly challenging position to double check we don't make mistakes
on what's a potentially slippery slope. However, if he goes ahead and
tears down the OOXML branch, I will be definitely starting a
discussion to remove his privileges, but not because of the issue at
hand but because I believe he (a) has a more than questionable right
to a veto on these issues which should probably go by majority vote,
(b) a veto a few months down the road has no meaning anyways and (c)
I'm not willing to accept a blanket veto: if he's unhappy with some
code, he should point out what the infringing code is and exactly
why, so that we can take action. He should also allow the community
to discuss the issues at hand, and talk about actual stuff instead
than generic patent bogeyman, call for a vote, gauge the community
reaction, then decide what to do, be it noting his dissent for a
later "hah, told you so", stick to his veto and see where that brings
us, or just fork POI.
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
Re: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection ofany ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
Posted by df...@jmlafferty.com.
Hi Sam,
I appreciate your point of view, I feel in the same position, but when he hints that we should pull the graphics parts then he threatens to destroy 3 plus years of work that the US based company I own a piece of has contributed to the project through a valid CLA-C, through our WFH arrangements with the Russian based company that Yegor (who is now release manager) has provided?
I think not!
It does not appear to me that there is any serious concern by the ASF that this will be a problem. Nick has done his homework, much effort and treasure has been expended. He is putting business at risk!
I am willing to take his threat as a +1 vote by him to revoke his commit status! He asked for that 3 times today!
I thank him for founding the project, but it is open source and he can't take back his donation.
Dave
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:26:47
To:"POI Developers List" <de...@poi.apache.org>, dfisher@jmlafferty.com
Subject: Re: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection ofany ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:01 AM, <df...@jmlafferty.com> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> I have a question, you've said you are software developer and not a diplomat, when did you find time to get a law degree? If you have a JD where did you get it, and where did you pass the bar? If you don't, have you actually discussed these issues recently with a lawyer specializing in intellectual property? If so, have you done so recently?
>
> As you can tell from these discussions this is a subtle issue, seek advice. To me it looks like you against the rest of us.
>
> Btw - you voted -1 before apachecon.
A few points of order. For starters, I too have not passed any bar.
But I would support the efforts of any committer who acted to either
prevent or minimize any imminent legal danger or security exposure.
Even if they were acting alone. Of course, I would expect them to be
fully prepared to justify their actions afterwards. Such an action
would not be a veto, and perhaps Andy mischaracterized it as such.
Such a mischaracterization is not something I am concerned with at the
moment.
The question in the forefront of my mind is whether or not there is
any imminent danger, legal or otherwise, which would justify any
committer to contemplate making such a destructive act?
If Andy is merely attempting to draw attention to a topic that he
considers important, then I would agree with him that he is no
diplomat.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
Re: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection ofany ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@buni.org> wrote:
>
> > The question in the forefront of my mind is whether or not there is
> > any imminent danger, legal or otherwise, which would justify any
> > committer to contemplate making such a destructive act?
>
> To ever know this you'd have to have a time machine or be an empath.
No time machine is necessary, if the danger is truly imminent.
Since POI under version control, we do not need thought police either.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
Re: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection ofany
ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:01 AM, <df...@jmlafferty.com> wrote:
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> I have a question, you've said you are software developer and not a diplomat, when did you find time to get a law degree? If you have a JD where did you get it, and where did you pass the bar? If you don't, have you actually discussed these issues recently with a lawyer specializing in intellectual property? If so, have you done so recently?
>>
>> As you can tell from these discussions this is a subtle issue, seek advice. To me it looks like you against the rest of us.
>>
>> Btw - you voted -1 before apachecon.
>
> A few points of order. For starters, I too have not passed any bar.
> But I would support the efforts of any committer who acted to either
> prevent or minimize any imminent legal danger or security exposure.
> Even if they were acting alone. Of course, I would expect them to be
> fully prepared to justify their actions afterwards. Such an action
> would not be a veto, and perhaps Andy mischaracterized it as such.
> Such a mischaracterization is not something I am concerned with at the
> moment.
>
No, I will revert the commit if you just dismiss/dismissive and make no
attempt to remedy it. Do not misunderstand that. If you're NOT going
to work with me, and are going to dismiss the matter out of hand, then
let's do it quickly and get it over with. If you are, then let's start
getting those patent grants and provide as much legal protection to the
work Microsoft is commissioning as possible. Who can I talk to to help
make that happen? I'm willing to donate money, time and resources to
making that happen.
> The question in the forefront of my mind is whether or not there is
> any imminent danger, legal or otherwise, which would justify any
> committer to contemplate making such a destructive act?
>
To ever know this you'd have to have a time machine or be an empath.
> If Andy is merely attempting to draw attention to a topic that he
> considers important, then I would agree with him that he is no
> diplomat.
Agreed. Never EVER claimed to be. As I said, I don't have enough
emotions (less frustration) to any email to be empathetic enough to be
one or sympathize with those who have deep emotions attached to emails
(other than frustration). And I believe per the study that any attempt
to read an email for emotional content unless expletives are used is
50/50 and coin flipping is more productive.
>
> - Sam Ruby
Full disclosure: I might have received a little bit of help on the
patent search side from a mostly disinterested party/friend that does
not wish to be named. I only mention it because I complained about some
of the interested third parties. Thanks. They know who they are.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection ofany ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:01 AM, <df...@jmlafferty.com> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> I have a question, you've said you are software developer and not a diplomat, when did you find time to get a law degree? If you have a JD where did you get it, and where did you pass the bar? If you don't, have you actually discussed these issues recently with a lawyer specializing in intellectual property? If so, have you done so recently?
>
> As you can tell from these discussions this is a subtle issue, seek advice. To me it looks like you against the rest of us.
>
> Btw - you voted -1 before apachecon.
A few points of order. For starters, I too have not passed any bar.
But I would support the efforts of any committer who acted to either
prevent or minimize any imminent legal danger or security exposure.
Even if they were acting alone. Of course, I would expect them to be
fully prepared to justify their actions afterwards. Such an action
would not be a veto, and perhaps Andy mischaracterized it as such.
Such a mischaracterization is not something I am concerned with at the
moment.
The question in the forefront of my mind is whether or not there is
any imminent danger, legal or otherwise, which would justify any
committer to contemplate making such a destructive act?
If Andy is merely attempting to draw attention to a topic that he
considers important, then I would agree with him that he is no
diplomat.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org