On Apr 22, 2008, at 11:45 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Gianugo Rabellino
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 22, 2008, at 10:44 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Just so it is clear: I am comfortable with POI proceeding if everybody
understands that in the event that patent threats surface that I will
be advocating that the affected code be remedied and/or jettisoned. I
am also comfortable with assisting Andy with his efforts to reduce the
possibility that this ever occurs.
+1, as in not only I agree but I will be the first one to act in that
case, but is this something Andy would be comfortable with?
I still need someone to explain me how the potential Microsoft
CCLA would
be useful. Assuming there is no copyright contribution from
Microsoft, which
grants of patent license would be applicable?
Roy has spelled out how the crafters of the various ASF documents
intended for the License, ICLA, and CCLA to be interpreted. If that
interpretation is either surprising or unacceptable to either
Sourcesense or Microsoft, then perhaps we may need to continue this
discussion.
As you can imagine, I won't/can't speak for Microsoft. With my
Sourcesense hat on I have no problem with that interpretation. It
might puzzle my ASF member hat and my Italian law school memories,
but if that's an authoritative reading of how the xCLAs are to be
interpreted, I'm fine with it and I believe that would sort the issue
right from the start.
Thanks,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Blogging at http://boldlyopen.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
