Gianugo,
I think that the question is -
"Has Sourcesense filed a CLA?"
I am sure the answer is "yes", but I think the confirmation of it
might ease any concerns.
Keep in mind that the project has been significantly hurt by
Microsoft's past actions - a committer leaving the project due to
employment requiring a Microsoft NDA. I don't know about the details
it was before my time, but I know Andy was effected.
If we are talking news - the following starts off from where the
story Andy links left off.
http://www.cnet.com/8300-13505_1-16.html?keyword=OOXML
I'm really not trying to be critical but is the criticism found at
the following links of concern here:
http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/2007/08/microsoft-office-
xml-formats-defective.html
Or, would you say that they provide some of the reasons you are here
in the project?
Is there some email thread I should check in order to catch up on a
discussion?
Regards,
Dave
On Mar 26, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Mar 27, 2008, at 3:49 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
And to be crystal clear, I do want to see the work go in: naked of
patent restrictions. A CLA-C from the company that has
commissioned the work would satisfy me or some binding statement
that the contributions are distributable under terms compatible
with the Open Source Definition. that includes field of use
(commercial use).
... may I ask why you're demanding that this contribution has to
endure a special, more restrictive, treatment? What's wrong in the
ASF procedures to require additional burdens? I know, I know, this
is Microsoft, but still I'd say that this could be a good test of
current ASF best practices, and enforcing them would be more than
enough.
Ciao,
--
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]
