Sam Ruby wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:52:07 AM, Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:That thread is insufficient. I'm still -1 on the commit. Get explicit clarification on the OSP from an actual lawyer or Microsoft. I support you having believes and practicing them, so long as they don't endanger POI and its users which I believe you to be doing. I believe that you are behaving a bit irresponsibly at the moment.The OSP says "This promise is not an assurance either (i) that any of Microsoft's issued patent claims covers a Covered Implementation or are enforceable or (ii) that a Covered Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party.". What that means to me is that the OSP is at best, helpful, and at worst harmless.
You're missing the point. Is the OSP a sufficient license to allow us to distribute POI under terms compatible with the OSD at worst and the AS at best. I know that if we were to get a CLA we'd be covered from Microsoft's patents. I do not know that to be true in this case.
Do you know of any encumbered donation?
We're speaking of the source sense work on OOXML in POI.
- Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Buni Meldware Communication Suite http://buni.org Multi-platform and extensible Email, Calendaring (including freebusy), Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease of installation/administration.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
