On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:12 AM, Michael Meeks <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 13:40 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> Since Sun had control of the Bugzilla instance, then anything you (a >> non-Sun member of the public) can see was "accepted" and "made >> available under the OpenOffice.org open source project". > > I don't believe that to be the case. I'm also fairly certain that > as/when/if the JCA rational and intention is investigated in court, it > will be discovered that the two distinct phases: 'deliver' & 'accept for > incorporation' were teased apart for some real reason: presumably to > avoid having to distribute any arbitrary 'delivered' submission under > the project license - such having to incorporate all of the Solaris code > into the OpenOffice.org open source project when some clown attaches it > to a bug. > > In my experience lawyers don't tend to add pointless distinctions into
In your experience with lawyers, did they ever teach you to misquote and/or modify the legal language in order to bolster your arguments? I assume not. You've invented new language in the JCA. It never said "accept for incorporation" as you have just quoted. There is a comma there, in the JCA, between 'accept' and 'for'. Punctuation is significant. (It is the same in C++, yes, if you leave out a semicolon?) In particular, a comma can mark a nonrestrictive clause or a parenthetical in this case since "and Sun has accepted" is set off by two commas. -Rob
