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 Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:34:20 GMT
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

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



Mime
View raw message