Hi, 2011/6/10 Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Nick Kew <n...@apache.org> 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 might want to treat the specifics of such matters in similarly >>> sensitive manner as to how you would carefully handle any potential >>> security related matters that might exist. >> >> Surely now this has been flagged, we can and should proactively address it >> in incubation. >> >> I'd propose to create a "Patent Issues" bug report. We can then call on all >> participants with knowledge of patent issues to enter them as dependencies >> of the meta-bug, so that Michael and other interested parties have a focus >> for related activity at apache.org. >> >> I would also suggest that it should be a blocker for graduation that every >> known patent issue be resolved. That is to say, either a full fix, or >> failing >> that a discussion and executive summary sufficient to alert users. > > 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 for incubation. > Some fundamental comments about the license have been written down by the FSF: http://www.fsf.org/news/openoffice-apache-libreoffice
Volker -- Volker Merschmann Member of The Document Foundation http://www.documentfoundation.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
