Given that POI is CURRENTLY open source, how EXACTLY does a document which grants us (a possibly empty set of) ADDITIONAL rights make it any less so?- Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This premise of this question assumes the the pledge is required for the rest of POI as well. There are no really strong reasons to believe that OLE 2 Compound document format is a particularly strong patent mine. There are a number of patents you can potentially run afoul of if you use POI to create a spreadsheet program or word processing program (including a few by Microsoft but predominantly the famous Wang Labs and others). Microsoft was not very active in the patent business until 1995 (they have some earlier patents but not many), well after OLE 2 CDF was created in 1990. Moreover, based on patents (including those filed by Microsoft itself) that extend OLE 2 CDF and reference INSIDE OLE but do not reference any patent filed by Microsoft, it is reasonable to assume that there is no direct patent covering OLE 2 CDF and no agreement with the OSP is required. (I can back up this analysis with the online references if you like but the email will be long and it will take us a while to generate). There are reasons to believe that Microsoft has filed and intends to file patents regarding OOXML. We're still looking for specific references on them.
The unique part of this situation is that the patent holder is attempting to contribute through a third party without actually signing a CLA-C. I'm attempting to ensure we're covered. The OOXML stuff would be covered by Microsoft's patent pledge and thus the restrictive covenant would be required to give us coverage. I would like to avoid the situation where a patent-holder contributes to POI via a third party then threatens the users of POI with patent infringement and extends this to a claim that "it is open source, but you need a traditional EULA to actually run it". Including the OOXML stuff would mean that the restrictions in the OSP and the legal analysis that Nick sent would mean that users of POI would need to realize that it could not be used under just the ASL but also the OSP which includes terms that are not compatible with the Open Source Definition.
Any of the actions that I stipulated in my message to Nick would clear up the matter. GR has noted that he is working to get them to sign a CLA-C among other things, this would really make the discussion moot.
-Andy -- 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
