Hi Sam,
I hesitate to respond, but only because I think that it fosters too
many multiple responses by Andy, and that these confuse the issue.
On Apr 17, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:55 AM, David Fisher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What do you consider the "pony" requests?
At the moment, all of them. Feel free to point your flame throwers my
way. I can take it.
If they are all "pony's" and the foundation's legal counsel agrees,
then I have no "Greek Fire" for you. Your efforts here are laudable.
I have no doubt that Microsoft has patents on web servers and that
other companies have patents on XML based document formats. What I
need to know is what specific licenses are licensees of POI known to
require in order to make use of our Work?
I will add that I do not like the current patent system - either US or
worldwide. But that is beyond my ability to fix, beyond the ability
our our counsel to fix, and beyond the ability of Microsoft's counsel
to fix.
It may be possible that in the future we may become aware of
additional licenses required either of us or of our licensees in order
to distribute or make use of our work. Dwelling on such hypotheticals
is not a productive use of our time. Legally, we can not distribute
our Work unless we have the rights necessary to do so granted to us.
By policy, we will not distribute our Work unless our licensees have
the rights necessary to "practice" or make use our Work.
Precisely, you cannot proceed unless there is something definitive.
We have a very high profile and ongoing dispute with another vendor on
similar matters. If nothing else, it should show that we are very
serious about such things. In the extreme case, it could very well
mean that we yank some portions of specific products or even entire
projects.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Is it Sun Java / Harmony ?
Returning back to POI, we would apply the same standard here. I have
every reason to believe that Microsoft is interested in promoting
ISO/IEC 29500 and/or ECMA 376. Having an implementation of this
standard made available under a permissive and open source license
would seem to be consistent with their goals of supporting this
standard. Having us yank said implementation as a direct result of an
action that Microsoft may contemplate in the future -- while
devastating to POI -- would not be consistent with Microsoft's
interests in promoting this standard.
Not only that, but they are being required to do it by the European
Commission.
It just does not make good business sense for them. While people may
doubt their technical choices, you can't doubt Microsoft's business
sense.
And if you are interested in disclaimers, I happen to work for IBM. I
am aware that there are people at IBM who feel strongly that OOXML is
counter productive. On this matter, at least in the context of POI, I
am decidedly agnostic. I have also worked with ECMA in the past, in
particular on ECMA 334 and ECMA 335.
Since we are being open. JM Lafferty Associates is a small company,
but we do have large clients and channel partners. At one time we had
150 public companies as clients of our IRagent.com investor relations
institutional contact and targeting website. We sold this business in
2004, but ran it for 3 more years. Suffice it to say we started down
the PowerPoint and POI path because one of these clients insisted on
PPT presentations and not the technically superior PDF. So, I cannot
be agnostic about it even though I feel a string pull.
Our current business strategy requires the production of PDF, XLS and
PPT documents. I feel that we have made our documents even close to
matching what we've been able to do in Postscript / PDF for the last
13 or more years, Mac PICT for 18 years, and prior to those using
Xerox Metacode printing during the 1980's, as a major accomplishment
that we are only too happy to contribute.
We plan to connect FOP and POI. I am reading my 1979 copy of TEK and
Metafont ...
Can you say what you do for IBM?
Certainly going between OOXML and ODF (or whatever) is a feature that
could only be valuable for IBM. Clearly OOXML will be around Office
2007, Office 208, ...
I don't see how we can possibly reach a resolution prior to this
weekend
threatened "button pushing" - Andy will you withdraw your threat
while Sam
pursues this "private" discussion? I would propose that Sam gives
us all
updates as appropriate. Perhaps you should back up your "deadline" by
another week?
I will not work under deadline unless somebody can point out an
credible, imminent external threat to the foundation. If the only
threat we have is that one committer has expressed an intent to act
irresponsibly, then as far as I am concerned, that's what version
control systems are for. Everything beyond that is an internal matter
for the POI PMC to deal with.
Perfectly reasonable, the only imminent threat is Andy's.
But I will offer to meet Andy at Azitra in Briar Creek next week for
some "Authentic Indian Fair". Yes, such a meeting would be private,
but as I recall, the last time we ate there the food was delicious.
I hope Andy doesn't think you are trying to "curry" his favor.
I split my time between San Francisco and Chicago. There are many
restaurant choices, and I certainly wouldn't mind dining with anyone
on this list who wants to meet. Email me privately if you are
interested.
Regards,
Dave
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
