On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Gianugo Rabellino 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.
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.
It seems to me that Andy's proposal according to Sam, and I may very
well be putting words into their mouths. Could be summarized as:
A new category of Patent Grant needs to be added to http://www.apache.org/licenses/
which would on some, as you say, unspecified occasions be required
from an upstream partner of the CCLA. Something similar, but,
different from a Software Grant.
It is certainly unclear about how to test for the requirement. I guess
that would need to be part of the proposal to the ASF.
This is in contrast to the apparent message from the ASF that nothing
is required because SourceSense has already asserted the rights via
their CCLA. In which case the point has always been moot. And all is
good, and all required homework was completed, and now, finally
thoroughly discussed and double checked!
I think that Andy's is the next comment....
Regards,
Dave
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
