Hi Sam,
On Apr 17, 2008, at 10:21 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:55 AM, David Fisher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Myself, I would ask Sam to informally discuss these requests as
"issues"
and see what their counsel suggests
My plans would be to discuss it with our counsel resources first. And
just as a fore-warning, such discussions would likely initially occur
on a non-public list.
Well, I've advocated this before. It makes sense to talk with our
counsel
But first, I would like to eliminate all "but I want a pony" types of
requests. I don't mean that in any way to be disrespectful to anybody
on this mailing list, but we need to respectful of everybody's time
and not request anything more than we absolutely need.
What do you consider the "pony" requests?
Request #2 - Specific mention of APL ala GPL? I think that this is a
pretty harmless request.
Request #3 - A partial list of patents? Probably the more blanket
statement they already have is more in our interest?
For example, much of this discussion has centered around Microsoft's
unsolicited OSP. To what extent does POI rely on that promise? We
have not required that of others. For example, if it turns out that
the OSP is at best helpful and at worst harmless, and it turns out
that POI doesn't require an OSP anyway, then is there really a need to
pursue clarifications?
To me the OSP means that contributers are safe from MSFT to make their
contributions to POI without inadvertently encumbering POI. That their
claims in their various CLA-C and CLA-I are are covered. But I'm not a
lawyer, and I would like to understand this issue on simple terms. I
think that this is an area where I would want to respect the judgement
of the ASF's legal counsel. If someone can't accept this then their
continued participation is questionable.
On the other hand, if it turns out that the consensus is that the
licenses that are made available for OOXML are not sufficient for
POI's needs and that the OSP, as currently written, does not cover the
gap, then I would be glad to help broker an agreement, and failing
that, help with and co-sign a letter such as this one:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html
I noticed that the OSP includes several questions and answers about
Email and Sender-ID which though I don't have time to more than very
superficially skim them both, part of the OSP Q&A looks like a
response to the letter. I think that Microsoft would respond to a
proper private letter before we would be required to make such a
public statement.
Let's see how Andy responds, I agree that this has taken quite a bit
of time, but it is worth it if we reach a consensus where everyone is
happy.
I don't see how we can possibly reach a resolution prior to this
weekend threatened "button pushing" - Andy will you withdraw your
threat while Sam pursues this "private" discussion? I would propose
that Sam gives us all updates as appropriate. Perhaps you should back
up your "deadline" by another week?
Regards,
Dave
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
