On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:15 PM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> On Apr 23, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:53 PM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Sam,
> > >
> > > On Apr 22, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > >
> >
Hi Sam,
On Apr 23, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:53 PM, David Fisher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Sam,
On Apr 22, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
While I, too, can't speak FOR Microsoft, I am quite willing to speak
WITH Microsoft. Particularly if the reque
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:53 PM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> On Apr 22, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > While I, too, can't speak FOR Microsoft, I am quite willing to speak
> > WITH Microsoft. Particularly if the request was modestly scoped, and
> > if doing so w
Hi Sam,
On Apr 22, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
While I, too, can't speak FOR Microsoft, I am quite willing to speak
WITH Microsoft. Particularly if the request was modestly scoped, and
if doing so would sort the issue right from the start.
It looks like someone from Microsoft has shown
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Gianugo Rabellino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
David Fisher wrote:
On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Apr 22, 2008, at 10:44 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
This is in contrast to the apparent message from the ASF that nothing is
required because SourceSense has already asserted the rights via their
CCLA. In which case the
Gianugo Rabellino 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 t
Sam Ruby wrote:
There are cases where we need nothing more than the Apache License,
Version 2.0. There are cases where we require an ICLA in addition to
the Apache License. Similarly there are cases where a CCLA is
warranted in addtion to an ICLA. In this case, Andy feels that we
need somethin
On Apr 23, 2008, at 12:03 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Gianugo Rabellino
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Gianugo Rabellino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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 i
On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Apr 22, 2008, at 10:44 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
"not considered (legally) with merit" is perhaps overstating it. One
of the questions I specifically asked on legal-internal "Are there
additional agreements that we should be pursuing with M
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 threat
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:
>
> > "not considered (legally) with merit" is perhaps overstating it. One
> > of the questions I specifically asked on legal-internal "Are there
> > additional agreemen
On Apr 22, 2008, at 10:44 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
"not considered (legally) with merit" is perhaps overstating it. One
of the questions I specifically asked on legal-internal "Are there
additional agreements that we should be pursuing with Microsoft at
this time?". I did not hear any objections a
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:14 PM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > It seems to be on this same exact point. if I understand Roy correctly
> > > nothing
On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:14 PM, David Fisher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 s
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:14 PM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 curr
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 sec
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 f
Hi -
Yes, a calm weekend. I checked with the SpamAssassin and JAMES
projects and they have not really looked into the OSP. SpamAssassin
does not care about Sender ID, it's obsolete. JAMES thought that the
OSP was an indication that MSFT has come along, but it was a first
look, nothing off
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Discussion here seems to have calmed down. Discussion has begun on
> legal-internal. I have plans to enjoy Indian cuisine with Andy on
> Tuesday.
All sounds very promising to me. Alas I'm on the wrong side of the
Atlantic to join you on Tuesday, but I will
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It isn't a deadline, it was a "if you're going to blow me off then I'm
> going to push this to the natural conclusion as quickly as possible because
> I have a lot of work to do, this came at a bad time for me, and w
You're oversimplifying my oversimplification responding to sam's
oversimplification. Which is why discussing feelings in email is not a
good idea (50/50 heads/tails).
David, I am sorry about your father. You have my condolences. We're
NOT saving the world, it is a totally legit reason to si
Hi Andy,
I apologize, but this was not the best week for me for you to decide
to "go nuclear". I buried my father on Tuesday, get it, this has been
a distraction. I've done well to stay as positive as I have.
I really don't want to whine, but if your response is to indicate that
you went
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:24 PM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 17, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
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 t
David Fisher wrote:
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.
Okay but thats really unfair: If I say "ask me laster" or don't respond
quickly then I'm @#$!@ and if I respond to each I'm [E
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:55 AM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 th
Again positive. Discussions with counsel are not what I was referring
to. However I think you are overly conservative on "pony" and David was
overly liberal (patent list isn't necessarily feasible for instance) in
places.
-andy
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:55 AM, David Fisher
David Fisher wrote:
Hi Andy,
Onto a constructive path:
THANK YOU THIS is the email I was hoping for.
Let's see if we can move the strategy.
I think that we should request a few clarifications of the OSP, given
our understanding of the following five points.
(1) The partial implementat
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The OSP probably offers no coverage. Even sam said something along the
lines that it is at best helpful and probably "harmless".
Please make the effort to quote me correctly.
Some facts to consider
Nick Burch wrote:
Just a thought - does anyone have a contact with Microsoft legal / with
an organisation that has contacts with Microsoft legal?
While I am personally happy with using the OSP for a partial and
possibly buggy implementation, I can see that Andy isn't. If we could
get Micro
Hi Sam,
On Apr 17, 2008, at 4:59 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:16 PM, David Fisher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 17, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:30 PM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
I tried to look to see what SpamAssasin an
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 5:16 PM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:30 PM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I tried to look to see what SpamAssasin and JAMES projects have to say
> > > about S
Hi Sam,
On Apr 17, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:30 PM, David Fisher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can also point at sender-id
where we took a similar stance with sender-id:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html
Now it *IS* worth noting
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:30 PM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can also point at sender-id
> > where we took a similar stance with sender-id:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html
>
> Now it *IS* worth noting that "Sender ID" is part of OSP. So the
Hi Sam,
On Apr 17, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:24 PM, David Fisher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 17, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
We have a very high profile and ongoing dispute with another
vendor on
similar matters. If nothing else, it should s
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:24 PM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > 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
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
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.
I have no doubt that Microsoft has patents on web servers and that
other companies h
Hi Sam,
On Apr 17, 2008, at 10:21 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:55 AM, David Fisher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Myself, I would ask Sam to informally discuss these requests as
"issues"
and see what their counsel suggests
My plans would be to discuss it with our counsel r
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:55 AM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Myself, I would ask Sam to informally discuss these requests as "issues"
> and see what their counsel suggests
My plans would be to discuss it with our counsel resources first. And
just as a fore-warning, such discussi
Hi Andy,
Onto a constructive path:
On Apr 17, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
2008/4/17 Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Just a thought - does anyone have a contact with Microsoft legal /
with an
organisation that has contacts with Microsoft l
2008/4/17 Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
> Just a thought - does anyone have a contact with Microsoft legal / with an
> organisation that has contacts with Microsoft legal?
I am confident that I could contact them quickly. I have yet to do
so. A
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The OSP probably offers no coverage. Even sam said something along the
> lines that it is at best helpful and probably "harmless".
Please make the effort to quote me correctly.
> > Some facts to consider: I've neve
Hi Andy,
Perhaps we should examine why Microsoft was willing to make the OSP,
they were willing to do so because it was to their advantage. Why was
it to there advantage? Because they have been forces to agree to pay
large fines by the European Union through anti-trust measures. Using
the
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
in the community that the OSP is "good enough" protection. There are
That is not true either and you missed the doc that Nick posted that
explains the problem from a legalistic point of view around "conforms".
I've just noticed one interesting thi
Ryan Ackley wrote:
Andy,
From my point-of-view you are pretty much asking for nothing less than
Microsoft to go beyond the OSP for POI. Correct?
Actually not exactly (a patent grant for POI and its derivatives) or to
fix the OSP to clarify conformance especially "best effort" conformance
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You seem to want to act with undo haste to remove code that was
committed previously but plea that it takes time to justify why that
is the case. I merely suggest that these two activities proceed in
Nick Burch wrote:
Does that make sense? If we got a ccla from Microsoft tomorrow, it
wouldn't make any difference to POI, as Microsoft don't own the
copyright on any contributions to POI, so there will be no patent
grants. In order to get patent grants under the ccla, we'd need
Microsoft to
On Apr 16, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I hold the patents are sufficient to justify it. My -1 holds, if
the commits aren't reverted, I will revert them. So you will need
to revoke my commit privs to prevent that.
And you will also revert Nick's (and possibly others') commi
Andy,
>From my point-of-view you are pretty much asking for nothing less than
Microsoft to go beyond the OSP for POI. Correct?
>From a practical standpoint you're asking for Microsoft to re-write
the OSP to your satisfaction. Because If they do it for Apache it
would pretty much apply to everyone
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Wow. I complied with your request to explain patents that OOXML is
> > > encumbered with and you're going
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wow. I complied with your request to explain patents that OOXML is
encumbered with and you're going to completely disregard them! Okay my -1
stands, I will revert the commits at the end of the week. Y
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I totally don't get the CLA-C argument.
It's a bit subtle, and it took me a little while to understand :)
Let us imagine that Acme Corp holds three patents, patent A, patent B and
patent C. Acme Corp has a ccla on file, as does its sole employee,
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Okay my -1 stands, I will revert the commits at the end of the week.
Alas I'm pretty sure that's not how code vetos work. If you object to some
code, you need to do so shortly after it is committed. Several months
later is unfortunately too late.
Secondly, regardless of what you think you requested. The patents cited
justify my -1.
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
PART I:
Per Sam's request, Patents that justify my -1:
*snip*
I do *not* believe that this is what I requested
I totally don't get the CLA-C argument. Corporations ALWAYS donate
through third parties (ala employees or otherwise), this changes nothing
in my mind. The copyright holder somehow giving patent grants I could
get.
I don't want to have the long motivation discussion because I don't want
to
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow. I complied with your request to explain patents that OOXML is
> encumbered with and you're going to completely disregard them! Okay my -1
> stands, I will revert the commits at the end of the week. You will now h
Wow. I complied with your request to explain patents that OOXML is
encumbered with and you're going to completely disregard them! Okay my
-1 stands, I will revert the commits at the end of the week. You will
now have to revoke my commit privs to prevent that from happening. No
matter WHAT I
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PART I:
> Per Sam's request, Patents that justify my -1:
*snip*
I do *not* believe that this is what I requested. But as you seem to
be consistently misinterpreting the requests of myself and others, and
furthermore s
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:22 AM, Gianugo Rabellino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My turn not to understand: you keep talking about a unique situation with a
> patent holder contributing via a third party. Why is that? What's so
> specific? What would the difference be if it was any other company
On Apr 16, 2008, at 3:16 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
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 wa
PART I:
Per Sam's request, Patents that justify my -1:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7257772.html?highlight=microsoft,xml,document&stemming=on
- required to be implemented for OOXML (example
http://software.topcoder.com/catalog/document?id=26831061)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7359902.h
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile, you have expressed a -1 and can not provide a specific
> > reason to back it up. I would strongly suggest that the appropriate
> > time to bring up such an objection is when you have the data to back
> >
Meanwhile, you have expressed a -1 and can not provide a specific
reason to back it up. I would strongly suggest that the appropriate
time to bring up such an objection is when you have the data to back
it up. Feel free to say "I told you so" at that time.
I do have part of the data and am
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 mig
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There are reasons to
> believe that Microsoft has filed and intends to file patents regarding
> OOXML. We're still looking for specific references on them.
When you find them, let us know. If and when you find a val
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 r
Given that POI is CURRENTLY open source, how EXACTLY does a document
which grants us (a possibly empty set of) ADDITIONAL rights make it
any less so?
- Sam Ruby
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional command
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > There is still an issue we need to resolve. Microsoft signing the CLA-C,
> > appropriately clarifying the OSP, or developing a standard
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There is still an issue we need to resolve. Microsoft signing the CLA-C,
> appropriately clarifying the OSP, or developing a standard for judging
> "conformance" (which should extend to running POI on devices where
First, thank you nick for the most productive piece of this thread.
This is a neutral authoritative disinterested legal analysis.
> Section 3.2 in particular is worth a read, since it does appear to
> clarify that there is a non-discriminatory, free of charge license on
> all the Microsoft paten
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:52:07 AM, Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > That thread is insufficient. I'm still -1 on the commit. Get explicit
> clarification on the OSP from a
I will answer you, but I want to limit the scope of the thread and
discussion so please ask me later, not now.
-Andy
Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ask me later.
I'm just trying to understand whether your gripe is about
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:52:07 AM, Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That thread is insufficient. I'm still -1 on the commit. Get explicit
clarification on the OSP from an actual lawyer or Microsoft. I support you
having believes and practicing them, so long as the
Thanks Nick. I'm reading this. This looks very helpful. To others:
For me at least the font was really bad (maybe it doesn't embed the font
in the PDF and it is picking an unfortunate font on Ubuntu?), if you
paste the link into google it converts it to html and uses a nicer font.
Nick Burc
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Get explicit clarification on the OSP from an actual lawyer or
Microsoft.
Baker & McKenize, who are a top IP law firm, have actually produced
such a report/clarification on the OSP:
http://www.bakernet.com/NR/rdonlyres/EEE2F422-F747-42CA-9DAA-E72F7
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:52:07 AM, Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That thread is insufficient. I'm still -1 on the commit. Get explicit
> clarification on the OSP from an actual lawyer or Microsoft. I support you
> having believes and practicing them, so long as they don't end
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ask me later.
I'm just trying to understand whether your gripe is about a) Microsoft
having patents on OOXML or about b) Microsoft funding Sourcesence to
work on it.
Case a) is probably true for all of POI and the
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Apr 13, 2008, at 4:23 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I'm happy to (re)state this. Sourcesense owns the copyright to their
contribution to the OOXML branch of POI.
On that point but not the patent.
Good, at least that's a step forward.
Would that be enough?
R
Ask me later.
Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Resolve the patent issue and it will be.
Would you also veto commits from anyone else working on OOXML?
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
On Apr 13, 2008, at 4:23 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I'm happy to (re)state this. Sourcesense owns the copyright to
their contribution to the OOXML branch of POI.
On that point but not the patent.
Good, at least that's a step forward.
Would that be enough?
Resolve the patent issue a
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Resolve the patent issue and it will be.
Would you also veto commits from anyone else working on OOXML?
BR,
Jukka Zitting
-
To unsubscribe, e-
I'm happy to (re)state this. Sourcesense owns the copyright to their
contribution to the OOXML branch of POI.
On that point but not the patent.
Would that be enough?
Resolve the patent issue and it will be.
Ciao,
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform
Andy,
in a rush today, so anything more than a couple of lines will have to
wait 'til I've landed, but:
On Apr 13, 2008, at 3:45 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
As all things legal with software, we are faced with two potential
issues here: one is copyright (that is
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
Andy,
to be honest, I find very hard to have a discussion with someone who
doesn't want to listen and keeps ignoring my contributions. Pardon me
If I did, I did not do it intentionally
for taking it personally when you not only ignore what I'm saying, but
keep on
On Apr 13, 2008, at 1:04 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> As the guy who sits on the Advisory Committee, I think it's
important
> to point out that I had no input on the blog post in question, I was
> not even aware that it was being written until after it was
published,
> and I doubt very much
> As the guy who sits on the Advisory Committee, I think it's important
> to point out that I had no input on the blog post in question, I was
> not even aware that it was being written until after it was published,
> and I doubt very much I could exert any kind of editorial influence
> over the a
Hi,
On 12/04/2008, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The key part of this blog "Notice: Sourcesense have provided speakers for
> OSS Watch events in the past, and a member of Sourcesense sits on our
> Advisory Committee."
As the guy who sits on the Advisory Committee, I think it's i
Nick,
The key part of this blog "Notice: Sourcesense have provided speakers
for OSS Watch events in the past, and a member of Sourcesense sits on
our Advisory Committee."
Okay so it is attack of the surrogates talking AT us instead of TO us
(which is sad really). Microsoft chooses to engage
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ooxml is a published "spec" in the process of becoming an ISO standard.
OSS watch have been looking into the ooxml patent issues, specifically for
POI. Their conclusion is that we're already covered by the OSP patent
grant, and that most of the apparen
:44:48
To:POI Developers List
Subject: Re: Rejection of any ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI
Right but the result won't be open source. The patent holder is using a
third party to implement its patent and will be free to require the
end-users to purchase licenses. After the patent hold
Right but the result won't be open source. The patent holder is using a
third party to implement its patent and will be free to require the
end-users to purchase licenses. After the patent holder that is hiring
a third party to implement its patent which it will then potentially
require non-O
On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
So the article is wrong? Microsoft is NOT *paying* source sense to
do this?
That's not the point. The point is whose copyright is the software
being developed. And it is not Microsoft's, it's Sourcesense's, who
then licenses to Apache v
So the article is wrong? Microsoft is NOT *paying* source sense to do
this?
Nick Burch wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Your word has nothing to do with it. Work for hire by a software
patent holder in the area of the work for hire.
But sourcesense didn't do their part o
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Your word has nothing to do with it. Work for hire by a software patent
holder in the area of the work for hire.
But sourcesense didn't do their part of the ooxml support as work-for-hire
though...
Nick
---
Oh I'm sorry I guess I didn't make it clear. Simply have the patent
holder which has hired you to contribute the work (Microsoft) submit a
CLA-C regarding the work. Very simple. Since they wish to see this go
forward, they should have no problem doing sounless they wish to
force users of
On Mar 28, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:36 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
That would be acceptable so long as it is true.
Please help a non-native English speaker in not taking offense at
this.
Ciao,
I meant no offense. What I si
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:36 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
That would be acceptable so long as it is true.
Please help a non-native English speaker in not taking offense at this.
Ciao,
I meant no offense. What I simply mean is that it is not acceptable for
a patent
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:36 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
That would be acceptable so long as it is true.
Please help a non-native English speaker in not taking offense at this.
Ciao,
I meant no offense. What I simply mean is that it is not acceptable for
a patent
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
