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 21:23:50 GMT

Steve Loughran wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr 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 
>> 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.
>> geir
> I have no objection to the RI being built by a legacy closed source 
> process, it is probably of too low a quality to want to use by virtue of 
> that selfsame process :)

I dunno.  I really think that the RIs should be open source, but 
companies sometimes use product as the RI - the point is really to 
demonstrate that the spec is implementable and testable, rather then 
being an open resource for reference, which is a shame, IMO.

> And I suppose they are granting rights to compliant implementations; it 
> is only non-compliant rights that have to worry about possibly 
> infringing some software patent that oracle holds. The trouble is: how 
> do you define compliance?

Passing the TCK.

This got me thinking - I do wonder what Oracle has here - I guess a 
patent.  I wonder how much that aspect matters since no one is going to 
implement this anyway except Sun and Oracle.


> -steve

View raw message