On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Allen Pulsifer
wrote:
>
> The net result of these issues are that project participants may have
> differing opinions on whether they want to either (a) include code for a
> possible patented technology or (b) include code to work around a
> potentially patented te
> Sam wrote:
> Before proceeding, I would like to seek advice from our counsel. I also
want to proceed based
> on specific patent infringement concerns and not on abstract
hypotheticals. However, I don't
> want to spend valuable time on this until we decide whether or not to
accept this project f
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
n,
>> > to the potential detriment of other users of the code.
>>
>> Wait. How is an IP remediation of "potential detriment of other users of
>> the code"? I can appreciate your concern over potential submarine patents
>> -- we do have a clause to addre
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
;
> Wait. How is an IP remediation of "potential detriment of other users of
> the code"? I can appreciate your concern over potential submarine patents
> -- we do have a clause to address that -- but how is REMOVAL of a problem
> a potential detriment?
The removal
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
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
e to write the following:
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
effort?
If done that way then t
ltimately 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 IP remediation of "potential detriment of other users of the
What I can say is that if "we" (which hopefully will include you), have done
everything right in our code base, then everything you take downstream will be
clean, as I previously mentioned and you liked. I'd like to say that any
remediation would be flagged as such, but
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
? how are such issues worked through ?
>
> Rob has already stated, as quoted by you, that "Symphony has done
> IP remediation at many levels. Where we've worked around things,
> WE WILL BE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE OUR FIXES BACK." [Emphasis mine]
Thank you for yo
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
not to lose track of is that Symphony has done IP
> > remediation at many levels. Where we've worked around things, we'll
be
> > able to contribute our fixes back. Could we have missed something?
This
> > is always possible. But I know with certainty that we&
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 othe
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
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
> remediat
32 matches
Mail list logo
