On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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?
"not considered (legally) with merit" is perhaps overstating it. One of the questions I specifically asked on legal-internal "Are there additional agreements that we should be pursuing with Microsoft at this time?". I did not hear any objections and actually got an indication that this was "a great idea". And the impression I got today from Andy was that this is all Andy is asking for. Of course, the devil is in the details. I'd like to see this scoped as narrowly as possible. It should define "You" and "Contribution" in a manner consistent with the current CCLA, and should define a patent Grant consistent with section 3 of the CCLA. Based on prior conversations, I got the impression that a full CCLA would satisfy Andy. As I see it, the ball is in Andy's court, as it were. If he does pursue drafting such an agreement, I can not guarantee that the ASF would approve the agreement, or that Microsoft would sign it, or that POI would chose not to proceed in the event that Microsoft did not chose to sign the agreement. On the other hand, I gave Andy specific pointers, indicated that there does seem to be some openness to the idea, and indicated that I would help. So, while I can not predict the future, the one thing that Andy can not say is that he has hit a dead end just yet. And Andy realizes that he is part of an all volunteer organization, and indicated his continued willingness to devote time and effort towards resolving this issue. Again, if I am now overstating anything Andy might have said to me at lunch, he is welcome to correct me. - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
