www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com>
Subject Re: JSR-198 up for final vote
Date Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:03:44 GMT
On Feb 23, 2006, at 5:30 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:

> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> The patent clause is what worries me.  With the patent restriction  
>> is it possible to license an clean-room implementation under an  
>> OSI license?  I feel we should not support a JSR that doesn't a  
>> grant field of use license to any derivative works of a complaint  
>> implementation regardless of the derivative work being compliant  
>> or not.
>
> The JSPA says that's every JSR.

If that is true, then Oracle's statement does not follow the JSPA.   
Specifically this:

  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.

I don't care about the copyright as we can just write our own  
implementation of the specification, but if there are patents  
required to implement the specification, downstream licensees of our  
code can not make non-compliant implementations.  To me that goes  
completely against the definitions of OpenSource.  Therefore, I don't  
think we should support any JSR that includes such language.

-dain

Mime
View raw message