Comments on: What About This Guy, Does He Have Rights To OpenXML IPR?

By: The Open Sourcerer

The Open Sourcerer — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:32:22 +0000

One is complicated legalise that lawyers around the globe are unable to comprehend.

The other is the GPL.

By: oliver

oliver — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:54:26 +0000

One is a grant of IP rights, the other is a software license. It is pretty hard to mix them up.

By: Harish Pillay

Harish Pillay — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:01:18 +0000

It has been variously suggested that the OSP is GPL mispelled. If that is the case, why do we have to split hairs and have YAL (yet another license)? If Microsoft is truly and honestly interested in more than just handwaving, just make OSP == GPL. Then, add to the mix, a pooling of all software patents that MS holds into the Open Invention Network, and let the next billion developers florish. Would you be so keen as to join us?

By: oliver

oliver — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:37:47 +0000

The whole sublicence debate makes no sense, it is a piece of classic FUD that somebody somewhere started. Whoever started it needs a round of applause, they have got a lot of mileage out of it.

You don’t need to pass me any rights to something that I already have.

By: Karsten Spengler

Karsten Spengler — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:49:10 +0000

I am not so sure about this. Microsoft guys always stress the difference of Open Source and Free Software. The OSP seems to be incompatible with the GPL and not sublicensable. Of course this was fully intentional.

I would prefer if ISO had a standard contract/license for patent indemnification or RF licensing, so you don’t need to rely on Microsoft to provide it which is probably no trustworthy party.