On Mar 28, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:36 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
That would be acceptable so long as it is true.
Please help a non-native English speaker in not taking offense at
this.
Ciao,
I meant no offense. What I simply mean is that it is not
acceptable for a patent holder to donate work to an open source
project and then go tell everyone that uses it that they have to
pay up. That isn't open source. I'm -1 until I'm convinced that
isn't what is about to happen. Nothing I've read has satisfied me
to that effect. RAND + non-comm are not satisfactory terms as they
fail the OSD.
I'm sorry Andy, but while I understand (and support!) where you're
coming from, I don't really see what would satisfy you. If you're
saying that all the legwork we've done is fine, yet you're
challenging my word on this, I don't see how we can really have a
conversation. There is evidence in terms of official documents (C/I-
CLA), there is an SVN history showing you that all the work has come
from Sourcesense, there is my declaration that we haven't been
tainted by MS IP and that we are legally authorized to contribute
this code... what else can I do?
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]
