David Fisher wrote: ***snipping out all the bla bla not related to the actual matter at hand***
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
which made me seriously wonder if he'd done his homework (under the laws of most countries, and various international conventions) if you take their money for the work they own it unless you contractually say otherwise. He clarified this with a much better worded definative statement. This is enough for me on that point (but not the patent point).
(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.)
I'll say whatever I want wherever I like. If there is a public authoritative note showing everyone did their homework on this part that the patent promise is legally binding, "covers" includes "best effort" and we can even legally have it in the repository, do snapshot releases, all the stuff we've done all along and our users and developers are protected -- of course I'll withdraw my -1.
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?
No. because I'm not convinced that we're not in patent peril by merely having it in the repository and doing occasional builds. More than one system went in production by a random daily snapshot.
As I said none of my emails have emotional content other than frustration because until I started being more explicit you all just weren't listening.
** snip ** -- 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
