David Crossley wrote:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
Heads up. An alarm bell was triggered by the
word "OASIS". Please ensure that ASF ideals are met.
Hi David,
I found this in the list. Is this good enough for us?
Don't ask me. As i suggested, contact legal-discuss@
(any committer can post).
http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal
We don't want to spread any FUD here on forrest-dev
so best go there with direct questions.
The proponents of this ODT plugin would need to determine
how we might be affected, do we need to redistribute
any of their resources, are we "implementing" the standard,
etc.
For reference. I have already had an official response from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] regarding the inclusion of binaries from OOo (which
will be required if we use the OOo as a server method of reading the
files - this is technical - no need for details in this thread). We
cannot include OOo binaries in an ASF project.
I do not have an official answer with respect to the implementation of
the odt standards. If we can implement them, we need to check that we
can also bundle the DTD's. In the original OOo plugin I did not bundle
them because the situation was clearer (it was sun licensed then), but
if we are able to bundle them it would be better. This still needs to be
checked with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
[leaving the useful links from Davids mail so we don't lose them]
Search legal-discuss first, for example i just did a
quick search and found these:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200509.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
I know that they are talking about "RF on RAND Terms"
but section 10.2.1 also affects "RF on Limited Terms".
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200502.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
The whole thread is useful.
I note that Cliff's draft policy doesn't even mention OASIS.
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200603.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Ross
