aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Bosschaert <>
Subject Re: Implementation of unreleased spec and community
Date Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:59:31 GMT
Hi Guillaume,

First of all, the OSGi Alliance is a very open standards development
organization. Any organisation can join. RFPs and RFCs are developed in the
open, specs are available for free and are free to be implemented by anyone.

There is also an open feedback channel available where everyone can post
feedback, described at

OSGi works very hard in defining specs that are portable and can be
implemented without the need to pay for any licenses or anything of that

History has shown that spec implementations are really quite portable.
Implementation bundles can be mixed from different sources and everything
just works as long as you use the specced APIs.

Every new spec that is being worked on in OSGi needs, besides the RFP/RFC
and spec chapter, a Reference Implementation and a Conformance Testsuite.
Over the past 10 years or so, Reference Implementations have primarily been
implemented in open source. This has the benefit that everyone can see what
the implementation is going to be and also it allows everyone to provide
feedback and participate in the implementation. Apache committers have free
access to the relevant CTs as well.

I think this is all goodness. Or would you rather see that Reference
Implementations are implemented in private?

Best regards,


On 18 January 2017 at 10:41, Guillaume Nodet <> wrote:

> I'm a bit concerned by some subprojects in our communities.
> The ASF is supposed to be "community over code", so the very basic thing
> for a project is that people can get involved.
> However, I see more and more code developped as a reference implementation
> of a spec which is not publicly available, because it's still being
> developed at the OSGi Alliance.  I find that very disturbing because
> there's no way the community can get involved unless they are OSGi Alliance
> members, and that's clearly not acceptable imho.
> Thoughts ?
> Guillaume Nodet

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message