On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:14 PM, David Fisher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems to be on this same exact point. if I understand Roy
correctly
nothing needs to be done. Given Gianugo Rabellino's representations,
Microsoft is bound and we are safe. Does Roy's response satisfy Andy?
No, Roy's response does not satisfy Andy.
As to whether or not anything 'needs' to be done, nothing in the law
is ever that binary until decided in a court, and even then decisions
are subject to being overturned.
There are cases where we need nothing more than the Apache License,
Version 2.0. There are cases where we require an ICLA in addition to
the Apache License. Similarly there are cases where a CCLA is
warranted in addtion to an ICLA. In this case, Andy feels that we
need something more. At the present time, Gianugo does not apparently
feel that is necessary.
So where does that put things then? If the opinion of the
legal-cmmt is that, although Andy's concerns are understood
and appreciated, they are not considered (legally) with merit,
then what happens with the veto? Does that "invalidate" it
due to the technical reasons for the veto not being applicable?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
