On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Gianugo Rabellino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
I would not have been surprised to hear "I don't feel that's either necessary or appropriate in this situation". But that's not the answer that was given. The criteria in situations like these are rarely binary. We are talking comfort levels. And comfort levels are topics where reasonable people can disagree. Just so it is clear: I am comfortable with POI proceeding if everybody understands that in the event that patent threats surface that I will be advocating that the affected code be remedied and/or jettisoned. I am also comfortable with assisting Andy with his efforts to reduce the possibility that this ever occurs. > > 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? Roy has spelled out how the crafters of the various ASF documents intended for the License, ICLA, and CCLA to be interpreted. If that interpretation is either surprising or unacceptable to either Sourcesense or Microsoft, then perhaps we may need to continue this discussion. > "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." I will only note that the above paragraph is meant to be understood in the context of the definitions supplied in section 1. > 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/ - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
