www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: JSR-198 up for final vote
Date Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:13:43 GMT

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 

Oracle is emphasizing the "Apache compromise", actually.  We (Apache) 
can do open source implementations, and have no requirement to enforce 
or pass down any additional license restrictions.

(as Roy notes in a later email these restrictions
> do not allow us to license under an OSI compliant license).

I don't believe so - he was commenting on the RI not being under an OSI 
compliant license, and I didn't think that Oracle had any intention of 
releasing the RI as free or open source software.

    I'm afraid
> that these notices are the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.

As I read it, they are emphasizing the existence of the terms in the 
JSPA that have been there for 5 years.


> -dain
> On Feb 20, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 2006, at 3:09 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=198
>>> Currently, I'm going to vote "yes" unless I hear otherwise.  Deadline 
>>> is COB tomorrow.  I'll get these to the list earlier in the future.
>>> Personally, I think this is a dumb spec.  Eclipse and IDEA aren't 
>>> involved (by their own choice).  It's not clear to me what problem 
>>> this spec solves.  However, it's optional, and up to the spec 
>>> particpants to try and generate market interest.   That said, I can 
>>> find no compelling ASF reason to vote against.
>> Well, there is this note in the business terms
>>  6. Although Oracle will place no restrictions on modifications that
>>  may be made by or license terms given to "downstream" licensees,
>>  it is Oracle's intention to clarify in the licenses, that under the 
>> JSPA,
>>  no copyright or patent licenses are granted for any non-compliant
>>  implementation made by downstream licensees, whether independent or
>>  based on the reference implementation.
>> which is a somewhat different attitude than what we took at Day, which
>> is that the RI is licensed under the Apache License and the only
>> restriction is (as mandated by Sun) on redistribution of the 
>> specification
>> and its API jar.
>> *shrug*
>> ....Roy

View raw message