Hi Andy,
Please read all of this and think about it. I hope when you are done
and have reflected on it, your answer will finally be short and to the
point without any negative verbiage or threats, then we can perhaps
proceed to answer the question so that MSFT will, as you suggest, help
us build our houses.
As a preface, until I read the OSP when it was announced, I held a
similar opinion to yours - afraid that Microsoft would squash POI, if
given the opportunity. I'm not a lawyer, but I've read some legal
documents and had some of my own IP protected. To me the OSP seems OK,
but you have asked us to examine the issue.
A week ago I tried to referee this a little bit - and I suggested that
we make it private, only because I thought that things were being
discussed in a personal way with jibs and jabs. But enough said, I
don't want to worry about that and neither do you. (But with all due
respect, your writing style gives doubt.)
I suggest your question (it comes across as an assertion) is really
about whether sourcesense's work on OOXML has INADVERTANTLY encumbered
POI. In this case we are all friends here and you should ask simply
stated questions. Very simply - remember not everyone speaks English
as their native language - in some languages like Russian word order
and negation are less important, just different, or completely without
meaning. You should also proofread carefully, and avoid "thread
profusion".
From one of your threads:
Unless you have a lawyer GIVING US/POI/Apache a legal opinion (as
our now voluntary lawyer with a fiduciary responsibility to us that
s/he accepts as our lawyer) that the MS contributions via source
sense can be legally distributed and used under OSD-compatible terms
(not to mention ASL), or if you're getting Microsoft to explain
their OSP in those terms including that a "best effort" to "conform"
is covered by the patent pledge (I.E. no sun style TCK with
backended license terms), or if you're getting Microsoft to sign a
CLA-C then guess I just don't care what you're saying. Nor should
anyone, you're a guy with a blog and an opinion. There are millions
of them!
In your long email, this comment is the most pertinent, and reflects
what I have been thinking since you raised this issue. I have been
busy with a death in my family, and have not been able to follow up
with Nick, Yegor, or anyone else.
I would however prefer a different phrasing than yours that doesn't
end with these last sentences. There certainly aren't a million
opinions in this group.
Here's how I would say it, and you can tell us if you think it gives
us a way to get the appropriate advice in order to resolve this issue.
(We do care what you think, if stated constructively)
(1) Request that the ASF's legal counsel offer a legal opinion that
the MS contributions (Gianugo says these don't exist and are NOT
MSFT's contributions, you assert otherwise) via sourcesense can be
legally distributed and used under OSD/ASL compatible terms, OR
(2) Get Microsoft to explain their OSP in those terms including a
"best effort" to "conform" is covered by patent pledge, OR
(3) Have Microsoft sign a CLA-C that covers sourcesense, or even
better any Microsoft contributions to Apache POI.
To me these are all reasonable assurances to seek, BUT with proper
consideration of Gianugo's statements, (1) is flawed and should be
replaced by:
(1a) Request that the ASF's legal counsel offer a legal opinion that
sourcesense's contributions can be legally distributed and used under
OSD/ASL compatible terms because their CLA-C is valid and there are no
MSFT patent issues, OR
(1b) Request that the ASF's legal counsel offer a legal opinion that
even if MSFT patents are "broached" by sourcesense's contributions
these can be legally distributed and used used under OSD/ASL
compatible terms because their CLA-C is valid and the OSP truly covers
any MSFT patent issues, OR ...
Would you agree to proceed with the OOXML branch if any of 1a, 1b, 2,
or 3 are ultimately answered in the positive?
(I propose you should say something here.)
From your other thread, I'll show by example how you are being
destructive of a reasonable dialog. This is a bit of a diatribe, and
you need not respond. I'm not trying to flame, I'm making a point
about your style, and how you rub people the wrong way even though
your intent is good.
Unless explicitly addressed (which it looks like you're starting to
try to do), I expect the contributions to be removed from the
repository. If they are not addressed, removed, then I'll remove them.
OOXML *IS* a branch and *IS* not released. I've not seen a vote to
release it, have you? Isn't that the time to vote -1?
Put your nuclear bomb back into your pocket, and stop the threats, as
far as I know WE ARE TRYING to address your issues as we understand
them. (I am a former diabetic and my advice is chill out, have
patience, think through and proof read your responses, this advice has
helped me. I know from experience some on this list will not even be
able to read your prose properly.)
Noting that I'll risk my continued access rights and at some point
"Apache POI founded kicked out of POI over Source Sense OOXML" gets
slashdotted. Neither of us really wants it to come to that.
(I keep erasing negative comments here, why do I keep wanting to say
something mean? Maybe because that same headline flashed in my head
when you dropped in the -1 in the first place. My other was Andy
hasn't been participating much lately, where has he been?)
If you remove them without giving us time to address them as you
suggest above then I *WILL* start a vote myself with different spin,
maybe "Remove Apache POI Founder For Abuse of Power". See, I can be
nasty too. Bully for me and bully for you? These kind of comments get
in the way of resolution, they are pig effluent.
Can you instead EXPLICITLY address the issues rather than threaten
to ignore my -1?
It would have helped us all if YOU had ACTUALLY raised YOUR issues
without dropping a VETO BOMB. (I don't need to say which government's
executive branch this action is analogous to. I'm a citizen of that
country, and have lived with it for more than 7 years. Sorry another
negative comment - not an opinion - a feeling - a reaction)
Why am I willing to go this far? Because I feel a deep
responsibility to the banking, financial, government and other
institutions that have supported us over the years and I want to
protect POI. Can't you work with me on that?
We can all work with you, but it would have really, really helped if
you had started out with a question about sourcesense's CLA and
whether it was clearly NOT WFH and whether or not a patent issue
clause was present or necessary. This would have been constructive.
Your -1 is destructive, we are human beings with feelings and not
computers that never sleep.
Peace and good night,
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
