> As the guy who sits on the Advisory Committee, I think it's important > to point out that I had no input on the blog post in question, I was > not even aware that it was being written until after it was published, > and I doubt very much I could exert any kind of editorial influence > over the assiduously impartial fine folks at OSS Watch. I point this > out to provide some kind of balance to Andy's focus on it.
Nick used it as a source, I noted that it wasn't a neutral source and should not be mentioned as authoritative and that it should be treated as probably biased by its own admission (like when CNN covers Time-Warner). I DO find it coincidental and the article very one sided.
> As do many other organisations, I'm sure. Do we treat them all with blanket -1s?
No I treat the contributions of any organization which holds patents and does not choose to ensure they are properly licensed such that they can be legally distributed in an open source compatible manner regardless of whether they are through a third party or not with a blanket -1. Once the legal problem is resolved, I will change that to a +1 and change :-)
> I think you're not helping your case here by ascribing secret > handshakes and ulterior motives. As an advisory service set up to > provide information about open source (and with a track record of > discussing open standards), it seems quite logical that some > discussion of the Microsoft OOXML should occur, and that it should > include mention of the POI effort. What's so mysterious about that?To be clear, I've never heard of OSSWatch until Nick brought it up. And this is getting sidetracked:
Why can't Microsoft just submit a CLA-C for the work they wish to contribute via source sense and we be done with this? Interesting that I keep trying to end each message on a positive tone, include that question and both the positive tone and this question get snipped without answer. I REALLY wish the passion would go into listening to what I'm saying and RESOLVING the issue rather than the finding ways to take offense at the WAY I'm saying them. I'm just a software developer, not a diplomat. Resolve this by using the business relationship to answer the issue properly:
1. Why can't Microsoft just submit a CLA-C for the work they wish to contribute via source sense?
or:2. Why can't Microsoft make a patent license that reads like a normal patent license that gives blanket coverage to implement the specification in clear language and USE that implementation without restrictions that are incongruent to the OSD?
I have always and continue to appreciate and support any work that goes into a legally distributable/usable OSD-compatible implementation of things within the scope of POI from any and all contributors and work from all contributors that goes into making sure that the work in POI is legally distributable and usable with an OSD-compatible license!
What a cool development this will be when it is done. When Marc Johnson and I started the project we really feared that one day Microsoft would threaten to take our houses, now they may contribute to paying all of our houses (and/or flats) off. This is WONDERFUL -- once we finish the homework.
Thanks! -Andy Andrew Savory wrote:
Hi, On 12/04/2008, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:The key part of this blog "Notice: Sourcesense have provided speakers for OSS Watch events in the past, and a member of Sourcesense sits on our Advisory Committee."As the guy who sits on the Advisory Committee, I think it's important to point out that I had no input on the blog post in question, I was not even aware that it was being written until after it was published, and I doubt very much I could exert any kind of editorial influence over the assiduously impartial fine folks at OSS Watch. I point this out to provide some kind of balance to Andy's focus on it.Microsoft chooses to engage the project entirely through a third party.As do many other organisations, I'm sure. Do we treat them all with blanket -1s?mysteriously OSSWatch now blog on why the OSSP Microsoft posted is splended but just worded poorly.I think you're not helping your case here by ascribing secret handshakes and ulterior motives. As an advisory service set up to provide information about open source (and with a track record of discussing open standards), it seems quite logical that some discussion of the Microsoft OOXML should occur, and that it should include mention of the POI effort. What's so mysterious about that? Andrew. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 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
