You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@poi.apache.org by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> on 2008/04/14 16:41:09 UTC
Re: [Fwd: Re: Rejection of any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI]
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:52:07 AM, Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org> wrote:
>
> That thread is insufficient. I'm still -1 on the commit. Get explicit clarification on the OSP from an actual lawyer or Microsoft. I support you having believes and practicing them, so long as they don't endanger POI and its users which I believe you to be doing. I believe that you are behaving a bit irresponsibly at the moment.
The OSP says "This promise is not an assurance either (i) that any of
Microsoft's issued patent claims covers a Covered Implementation or
are enforceable or (ii) that a Covered Implementation would not
infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third
party.".
What that means to me is that the OSP is at best, helpful, and at
worst harmless.
Do you know of any encumbered donation?
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: Rejection of any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI]
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Andrew C. Oliver <ac...@buni.org> wrote:
>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:52:07 AM, Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > That thread is insufficient. I'm still -1 on the commit. Get explicit
> clarification on the OSP from an actual lawyer or Microsoft. I support you
> having believes and practicing them, so long as they don't endanger POI and
> its users which I believe you to be doing. I believe that you are behaving
> a bit irresponsibly at the moment.
> > >
> >
> > The OSP says "This promise is not an assurance either (i) that any of
> > Microsoft's issued patent claims covers a Covered Implementation or
> > are enforceable or (ii) that a Covered Implementation would not
> > infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third
> > party.".
> >
> > What that means to me is that the OSP is at best, helpful, and at
> > worst harmless.
>
> You're missing the point. Is the OSP a sufficient license to allow us to
> distribute POI under terms compatible with the OSD at worst and the AS at
> best. I know that if we were to get a CLA we'd be covered from Microsoft's
> patents. I do not know that to be true in this case.
Sufficient? Heck no? I'm quite comfortable saying that the OSP is --
at worst -- totally irrelevant.
Does POI today have any patent license from Microsoft?
Does the OSP remove any license that we do have?
> > Do you know of any encumbered donation?
>
> We're speaking of the source sense work on OOXML in POI.
Have those at source sense signed the ICLA? If it makes you more
comfortable, have them confirm that they have reread and understood
section 7.
There is no issue here. Microsoft may have no patents that read on
POI. Alternatively, they may already have patents that read on POI.
Either way, the OSP does not make anything worse.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: Rejection of any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI]
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:52:07 AM, Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@buni.org> wrote:
>> That thread is insufficient. I'm still -1 on the commit. Get explicit clarification on the OSP from an actual lawyer or Microsoft. I support you having believes and practicing them, so long as they don't endanger POI and its users which I believe you to be doing. I believe that you are behaving a bit irresponsibly at the moment.
>
> The OSP says "This promise is not an assurance either (i) that any of
> Microsoft's issued patent claims covers a Covered Implementation or
> are enforceable or (ii) that a Covered Implementation would not
> infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third
> party.".
>
> What that means to me is that the OSP is at best, helpful, and at
> worst harmless.
>
You're missing the point. Is the OSP a sufficient license to allow us
to distribute POI under terms compatible with the OSD at worst and the
AS at best. I know that if we were to get a CLA we'd be covered from
Microsoft's patents. I do not know that to be true in this case.
> Do you know of any encumbered donation?
We're speaking of the source sense work on OOXML in POI.
>
> - 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.