www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: JSR-198 up for final vote
Date Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:15:25 GMT
Now that I've seen that, I agree.

However, don't we get an opportunity to voice that concern at the start
under the rules of the JCP 2.6? It's not that important of a JSR to kick
up a fuss about if that was the case and we've "missed the chance".  I
don't expect the JCP honours "-0" though :)

In the end, they are probably crippling themselves if they need market
adoption to give it traction.

- Brett

Steve Loughran wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> I think we should take a firm stand and vote against against any JSR 
>> that includes the downstream licensing restrictions, since it 
>> violates the Apache compromise (as Roy notes in a later email these 
>> restrictions do not allow us to license under an OSI compliant 
>> license).   I'm afraid that these notices are the proverbial camel's 
>> nose under the tent.
>> -dain
> Unless anyone has a pressing need for the vote go through, I am in
> agreement here.
> This whole thing about "non-compliant" implementation clause is
> bollocks. We already sort of have it with some of the other JCP stuff
> where we can only release stuff with the appropriate title after passing
> the TCK, but there is nothing to stop any cutting their own release as
> long as they don't say "Java EE" or something similar. This
> "non-compliant doesnt get the patent rights" clause prevents any third
> party from making a release.
> -Steve

View raw message