On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:45 AM, dsh <daniel.hais...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > If IBM has legal concerns in this regards they may involve their own > IP and patent attorney stuff IBM-internally.
I really didn't want to participate in this thread, and like Greg wish it would end, but I will state a number of things: (1) that I have not (yet?) heard this particular concern from IBM attorneys on this particular project (2) I am quite willing to talk to IBM attorneys (and those that know me also know that I am quite willing to tell them in straight terms what the ASF is, and is not, willing to tolerate) (3) The ASF that I know would never tell a project that they can't do something for which there are volunteers simply because similar functionality is available under a less permissive license. (4) Finally I will (re)state my vision[1]: Part of this vision is also that participants don't block one another. If IBM, for example, has a proprietary value add they should not be able to block somebody else from contributing substantially similar functionality to the ASF under a more liberal license. Similarly, if LO has some CopyLeft value add, they should not be able to block others from contributing substantially similar functionality to the ASF under a more liberal license. > Cheers > Daniel - Sam Ruby [1] http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/msg06396.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
