On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: > > > > 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. > > YES that place was great. Let me check my calendar next week. I'd prefer > to do that BEFORE I get another root canal. My treat. I'll ping you > offline unless anyone else will be in our area :-)
We had a wonderful lunch. Despite clearly specifying Indian/Asian hot, the food -- while sinus clearing -- wasn't eye watering. But it was delicious nevertheless. We spent a good two hours there talking about everything from the alleged drought that the Raleigh area is in to the joys of parenting. In the last ten minutes, we talked about legal issues. Here's what I took away from the conversation, Andy is free to correct me. For starters, the goal of POI is interoperation. Any standards that may have come about recently are at best a bonus. If it turns out that there are any Microsoft patents may read on POI as a direct result of a Contribution from Sourcesense that was funded by Microsoft, then Andy feels that it would be irresponsible for the ASF to not ensure -- up front -- that we have clear license to implement those patents. Even if those patents turn out not to be necessary for spec compliance, but merely important for interoperation. Andy feels that this is important even if it is the case that Microsoft's current interests are aligned with the success of this effort, and even if a careful (and possibly creative) read of the license grants may lead you one to believe that the ASF is covered, and furthermore even if there is a firm commitment by the ASF to jettison any functionality that we later discover to be something we don't have adequate rights to. While Andy and I did not discuss this next part directly, it occurred to me on the drive back home that what Andy is expressing is a desire for something like we have with the current ICLA/CCLA split. The ASF requires ICLAs in all circumstances, and encourages (via section 4 of the ICLA) CCLAs in certain circumstances. We may be in a situation where it would behoove us to pursue a separate patent grant in the context of Contributions which are funded by third parties. - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
