Hi Sam,
So where are we?
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.
I wondered if either of you had read Roy T Fielding's post prior to
the meeting.
To be very specific, if SourceSense is indeed being contracted by
Microsoft for the purpose of contributing to POI, then Microsoft is
a Contributor and bound by the terms of our license agreements every
bit as much as SourceSense, even if Microsoft is not the copyright
owner of the Contributions being submitted. There is no need for
an additional CCLA from Microsoft -- they are already bound by
the intent and actions of their own contract with SourceSense, and
it is SourceSense that must explain their own agreement with the
ASF to any entity that contracts with them. It is SourceSense that
must have the necessary agreement in place to contribute some other
entity's intellectual property on their behalf.
Our CLAs apply to both copyright and patent licensing. Please
don't assume that we didn't anticipate indirect contributions
when our licenses were written and agreed to by all signers.
It seems to be on this same exact point. if I understand Roy correctly
nothing needs to be done. Given Gianugo Rabellino's representations,
Microsoft is bound and we are safe. Does Roy's response satisfy Andy?
There is no EULA issue like for Sender ID is there? I think no.
As far as compliance with the whole spec - I saw on slashdot yesterday
that MS Office 2007 OOXML is not compliant with their own standard. Do
we need to seek clarification from MSFT about partial implementations
of the spec. I think not.
For the rest of us, is the OSP sufficient? I think yes. Are we still
seeking advice from legal?
Regards,
Dave
On Apr 22, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
