Re: Rejection of any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI

[Andrew C. Oliver]

No. If sourcesense is doing this as work for hire then the work is probably owned by Microsoft. The patents are Microsoft's if they apply to work source sense is doing or source sense is relying on MS provided information covered by those patents. We want to keep POI free of RAND, non-comm, and other restrictions. The question remains: Has Microsoft Filed a CLA for any work for hire that Sourcesense is doing? Did anyone ask them to? Why wouldn't they be willing to?

-Andy

David Fisher wrote:

I took the same position regarding OpenSAML which had a similar issue at the time. POI must continue to be freely distributable and free of field of use restrictions. I recently also supported OSI's approval of Microsoft's open source licenses. I think it will rock to have a mature open source OOXML in Java for various reasons. Not the least of which that I'd like to never get a OLE CDF/BIFF/etc doc ever again (binary non-streamable fragment prone icky icky). It isn't an emotional thing or even a Microsoft thing it is a patent and field of use restriction thing.

Gianugo,

I think that the question is -

"Has Sourcesense filed a CLA?"







http://www.cnet.com/8300-13505_1-16.html?keyword=OOXML

I am sure the answer is "yes", but I think the confirmation of it might ease any concerns. Keep in mind that the project has been significantly hurt by Microsoft's past actions - a committer leaving the project due to employment requiring a Microsoft NDA. I don't know about the details it was before my time, but I know Andy was effected. If we are talking news - the following starts off from where the story Andy links left off. I'm really not trying to be critical but is the criticism found at the following links of concern here: http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/microsoft-office-xml-formats-defective.html

Regards,
Dave

On Mar 26, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:

Or, would you say that they provide some of the reasons you are here in the project? Is there some email thread I should check in order to catch up on a discussion?

On Mar 27, 2008, at 3:49 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

And to be crystal clear, I do want to see the work go in: naked of patent restrictions. A CLA-C from the company that has commissioned the work would satisfy me or some binding statement that the contributions are distributable under terms compatible with the Open Source Definition. that includes field of use (commercial use).

Ciao,

--Gianugo Rabellino
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Blogging at http://boldlyopen.com/






---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

... may I ask why you're demanding that this contribution has to endure a special, more restrictive, treatment? What's wrong in the ASF procedures to require additional burdens? I know, I know, this is Microsoft, but still I'd say that this could be a good test of current ASF best practices, and enforcing them would be more than enough.

--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature