On Apr 22, 2008, at 10:44 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
"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.
The "great idea" feedback from legal-internal is a legitimate answer
to a dubious question: given the choice, I bet very few would opt for
less clarity. However, am I the only one seeing a slippery slope
here? We are setting a dangerous precedent, basically saying that the
standard ASF procedures in terms of CCLA/ICLA might or might not be
sufficient according to some unknown criteria.
Based on prior conversations, I got the impression that a full CCLA
would satisfy
Andy.
I still need someone to explain me how the potential Microsoft CCLA
would be useful. Assuming there is no copyright contribution from
Microsoft, which grants of patent license would be applicable?
"where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by
You that are necessarily infringed by Your Contribution(s) alone or
by combination of Your Contribution(s) with the Work to which such
Contribution(s) were submitted."
My very own recollection is that either we are all set via indirect
means (OSP and potential clarifications we might pursue with MS,
Estoppel, MS public statements), or we need something more. Problem
is, if the latter applies, that's unlikely to be a CCLA.
Thanks,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Blogging at http://boldlyopen.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
