On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sam Ruby wrote: > > > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:52:07 AM, Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
