On Jun 10, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
>>
> Some fundamental comments about the license have been written down by
> the FSF: http://www.fsf.org/news/openoffice-apache-libreoffice
>
As posted on the discuss@ list... So what?
It would be trivially easy for someone here to post a
Hi,
2011/6/10 Sam Ruby :
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>> On 9 Jun 2011, at 20:10, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> I agree that the ethical thing to do is to inform partners of such matters,
>>> although I still don't know how to guarantee it. And generally speaking,
>>> you mi
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> On 9 Jun 2011, at 20:10, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> I agree that the ethical thing to do is to inform partners of such matters,
>> although I still don't know how to guarantee it. And generally speaking,
>> you might want to t
On 9 Jun 2011, at 20:10, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I agree that the ethical thing to do is to inform partners of such matters,
> although I still don't know how to guarantee it. And generally speaking, you
> might want to treat the specifics of such matters in similarly sensitive
On 09/06/2011 19:53, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 14:27 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
...
This is what I want to avoid; I would like to winkle this information
out, publicly, to ensure that LibreOffice (and others: gnumeric, KOffice
etc.) can take advantage of it. Is th
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 14:27 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> > Ultimately with a suite of 8+ million lines, packed with obscure features,
>> > and thousands of lines of change a day it is fairly easy to slip things in,
>> > to the potential
Michael,
I agree that the ethical thing to do is to inform partners of such matters,
although I still don't know how to guarantee it. And generally speaking, you
might want to treat the specifics of such matters in similarly sensitive manner
as to how you would carefully handle any potential s
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 14:27 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Ultimately with a suite of 8+ million lines, packed with obscure features,
> > and thousands of lines of change a day it is fairly easy to slip things in,
> > to the potential detriment of other users of the code.
>
> Wait. How is an
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> Since IBM has already implemented their workarounds and it is existing code
> shouldn't it all be contributed via a Software Grant from IBM and go through
> the same IP remediation as the Oracle grant only at a much smaller level of
> effor
On Jun 9, 2011 11:16 AM, "Michael Meeks" wrote:
>...
>It still leaves something you can't answer though: whether it is
Rob's
> understanding of IBM's intention to camouflage such changes or to flag
> them all openly and clearly. Ultimately with a suite of 8+ million
> lines, packed with ob
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 13:54 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> The net of all of this is that there will need to be a substantial
>> public aspect to this entire discussion. Yes, I will probably have
>> some private discussions with ASF la
On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 13:54 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> The net of all of this is that there will need to be a substantial
>> public aspect to this entire discussion. Yes, I will probably have
>> some private discussions with ASF law
Michael Meeks wrote:
> It still leaves something you can't answer though: whether it is Rob's
> understanding of IBM's intention to camouflage such changes or to flag
> them all openly and clearly.
Separating the above from what seems to be the underlying concern.
> Ultimately with a suite of 8+
Michael Meeks wrote:
> I rest my case about FUD. It seems hard for me to reconcile your
> statement with the emphasis around things happening transparently
Then let me be equally clear. I've learned not to discuss *potential* legal
issues on public lists before first consulting counsel. Akin t
On 09/06/2011 18:59, Michael Meeks wrote:
and/or can others comment on ASF policies in this regard ? how are
such issues worked through ?
This question was intended to mean:
"What is ASF's normal modus operandi here ?, how does this type
of issue get addressed ? are th
Hi Sam,
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 13:54 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> The net of all of this is that there will need to be a substantial
> public aspect to this entire discussion. Yes, I will probably have
> some private discussions with ASF lawyers over time over this matter,
> but I can't see any way th
Hi Noel,
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 13:13 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> I heard about this, myself, in some specific detail very recently.
> I will leave disclosure to the relevant parties, but while it may
> or may not be an issue for you ...
I rest my case about FUD. It seems hard for me t
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> I don't see how this has any bearing on the vote. The ASF doesn't require
>> entities to disclose whether or not any particular contribution includes a
>> patent license.
>
> We do, however, have the patent clause t
Am 09.06.2011 19:13, schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> Please stop using the meme that software patents make Americans happy.
+ 1 from Germany
Cheers,
Andreas
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For add
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> I don't see how this has any bearing on the vote. The ASF doesn't require
> entities to disclose whether or not any particular contribution includes a
> patent license.
We do, however, have the patent clause to ensure that contributed code comes
with license for any necessa
Michael Meeks wrote on 06/09/2011 12:27:56 PM:
> In the deluge of drivel I lost this gem in your response to
> my scepticism about how quickly you could provide a binary release:
>
> On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 10:31 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > But one thing not to lose track of
Michael Meeks wrote:
> Robert Weir wrote:
> > But I know with certainty that we've fixed things that LO has missed.
> > (I'm talking patents, not the MPL/LGPL dependency issues).
> You seem to assert that you have patent remediation patches for
> problems that others are unaware of, that you can
s, so it's advantageous
to seek out contributions from as many orgs as possible.
- Original Message
> From: Donald Whytock
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, June 9, 2011 12:58:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Remediation ...
>
> Considering the code was owned by
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 9 Jun 2011, at 17:27, Michael Meeks wrote:
>Can you comment on your plans, and/or can others comment on ASF
> policies in this regard ? how are such issues worked through ?
I can't comment on the details if Robs remediation comments
Sent: Thu, June 9, 2011 12:46:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: Remediation ...
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Michael Meeks
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > IMHO this is vastly
- Original Message
> From: Simon Phipps
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, June 9, 2011 12:46:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Remediation ...
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:27 PM
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Michael Meeks
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > IMHO this is vastly preferable to some smoke and lawyer (IANAL)
>> > filled room that issues edicts to remove feat
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Michael Meeks
> wrote:
> >
> >IMHO this is vastly preferable to some smoke and lawyer (IANAL)
> > filled room that issues edicts to remove features and veto patches
> > without a clear public rational on a
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
> IMHO this is vastly preferable to some smoke and lawyer (IANAL)
> filled room that issues edicts to remove features and veto patches
> without a clear public rational on a public list (cf. the above).
All work at the ASF that involv
Hi Rob,
In the deluge of drivel I lost this gem in your response to
my scepticism about how quickly you could provide a binary release:
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 10:31 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
> But one thing not to lose track of is that Symphony has done IP
> remediation at many
30 matches
Mail list logo
