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 provide, but you are
> choosing not to (yet) ? There is a nasty nucleus of potential future FUD
> here, so it would be interesting to firm this perennial rumour up.
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, IBM did not consider it FUD on their end, and invested in
addressing it to their satisfaction. So let's at least, taking a line from one
of Simon's recent messages, "assume they are a wise and honest conclusion to an
earlier conversation until we discover otherwise."
> Can you comment on your plans, and/or can others comment on ASF
> policies in this regard ? 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]
ASF policy is that our code must be unconstrained, in order to be available for
all purposes to all parties. So, yes, we should expect (and require) that IP
remediation will happnen in our codebase.
> * As a European, I rather resent the ethnocentric imperialism
> implied by trying to export the (terminally broken) US patent
> system
As an American, I wish that you lot would simply up and pass legislation to
reject all US Patents on software so that we can get rid of our broken US
patent system. Please stop using the meme that software patents make Americans
happy.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
