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.


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