On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
No. If sourcesense is doing this as work for hire then the work is
probably owned by Microsoft.
I'm pretty sure the deal was structured so as not to be "work for hire",
for reasons just like this (amongst others). I'll let Gianugo confirm that
though, as I only know that sort of thing second hand!
In terms of the various checks that have been done:
* Sourcesense have a CCLA on file
* All the Sourcesense employees working on poi have a ICLA on file
* Sourcesense have stated that they have no secret microsoft information /
documentation, and are only working off the publically released specs.
* Sourcesense have stated that they own all the rights to their
contributions, and so are in a position to be able to cleanly
contribute it all to apache
* The apache legal team have ok'd the use of the schemas that come with
the ooxml specification (I didn't explicitly ask about the specs
themselves, but they're under the same license)
Patent wise, I don't think the ooxml stuff is any different from the
binary stuff - I think we're in the same boat for both. The binary file
format docs were recently released under exactly the same terms as the
ooxml stuff is.
Gianugo - are you happy to make a public statement about the work not
being work-for-hire for microsoft, and the fact that you haven't got any
documentation other than the public stuff? Hopefully that'll clarify
things for everyone.
Nick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
