Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Apr 16, 2008, at 1:16 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: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.No, I didn't say that. What I said was that I have no idea of what Microsoft might or might not want to do with regard to a C-CLA. What I did actually mention, though, was that the CLA-C wouldn't resolve the issue, as any patent grant would be related to a contribution. Since MS in itself isn't contributing any code per se, the CLA-C patent grant would be moot (basically along the lines of a security theatre).Ciao,
I misunderstood then. My apologies.I don't understand this argument. I understand what you're saying, but it assumes that the top part excludes the patent part from applying and is immutable. One can assume that the CLA-C could be written better since it talks about both patents and copyright but I guess I assumed it was a non-exclusive copyright grant anyhow and thus still apply, I hardly think this is a big issue that cannot be corrected by a simple correction to the preamble.
-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
