> Section 3.2 in particular is worth a read, since it does appear to > clarify that there is a non-discriminatory, free of charge license on > all the Microsoft patents, so we (and our users) are OK. The whole > document's only about 10 pages, so I'd strongly recommend that people > have a read of it.
no Nick, it specifically addresses my issue in a very negative light. See the section on Partial implementation. In fact it raises another issue (OSD #10 http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php). Also note that RAND terms are often not compatible or conducive to an open source implementation (as the document indirectly addresses elsewhere).
With regards to the part of the Partial Implementation section that concerns me read this:
===quote===It then goes on to state that the grant is applicable only to the extent that that implementation (referred to as a 'Covered
Specification') "conforms" to one of the listed specifications. " ...Limiting the applicability of the promise only to fully compliant implementations does not appear on its face to be an unreasonable condition, because partial implementations potentially may undermine the integrity of the standard or specification. Non-conforming or non-compliant implementations may also give rise to unpredictable consequences that the parties promulgating the standard or specification may want, or indeed need, to take action to prevent. However, such a limitation may be more restrictive from an implementer’s perspective, especially when the lack of ‘full’ compliace is the result of programming errors and not as a result of intentional partial implementation due to the nature of the device or software implementing the specification.
... ===quote===This means that the OSP does not cover what is currently in the repository for instance. For the OSP to mean anything you have to get Microsoft to agree that it *conforms* or Microsoft needs to develop some standard for judging conformance (such as a TCK licensed under one of microsoft's open source licenses) or Microsoft needs to explain that a "best effort" with "bugs" which conforms to the "fullest extent possible on the runtime environment" have coverage (meaning they "conform").
There is still an issue we need to resolve. Microsoft signing the CLA-C, appropriately clarifying the OSP, or developing a standard for judging "conformance" (which should extend to running POI on devices where it is not possible to fully "conform") would satisfy me.
I'm not trying to be intractable here, but POI needs to stay open source. I'm still -1 until the issue is resolved. I'm comfortable reverting it (given GR's statement w/regards to copyright) once this issue is appropriately resolved.
-Andy Nick Burch wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:Get explicit clarification on the OSP from an actual lawyer or Microsoft.Baker & McKenize, who are a top IP law firm, have actually produced such a report/clarification on the OSP: http://www.bakernet.com/NR/rdonlyres/EEE2F422-F747-42CA-9DAA-E72F751A2FFA/0/london_it_openxmlstandardisation_publication_jan08.pdfSection 3.2 in particular is worth a read, since it does appear to clarify that there is a non-discriminatory, free of charge license on all the Microsoft patents, so we (and our users) are OK. The whole document's only about 10 pages, so I'd strongly recommend that people have a read of it.Nick --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
