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 291 - public review
Date Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:53:31 GMT

On Jan 22, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Jan 22, 2007, at 5:35 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>   2) The Specification, RI, and TCK licenses are provided to the EC
>>>      prior to the vote;
>>
>> We're not at that stage.  This is just the public draft, but I  
>> expect that will happen at the end of the process.
>>
>>>
>>>   3) The Specification and TCK licenses allow an open source
>>>      implementation;
>>>
>>>   4) The above licenses are provided at no cost to nonprofit
>>>      organizations like the ASF; and
>>
>> Both of these are required by the JCP, but I don't see how this is  
>> going to work out yet.  The license of the included OSGi spec is  
>> for feedback and distribution only.  I assume that you aren't  
>> being licensed to implement the spec, even for internal  
>> evaluation.  That's unusual for even a JCP spec.  Granted, this is  
>> consistent with the license you agree to to review this spec which  
>> doesn't mention implementation either.
>
> Actually, I think this is because of Sun legal's boilerplate license
> for the public review.  The PMO required Day to do the same for JSR  
> 170
> during the JCR review period, and then replaced the review license  
> with
> the real license for the final review.  In other words, I think this
> is a non-issue for now.
>
> I think we should vote Yes with a comment to the effect that all of
> this must be cleared up in the final submission.  There should be a
> statement by the Spec Lead that indicates they have been licensed
> all of the intellectual property necessary from the OSGi Alliance
> members and that said IP is included in the Specification License.
>
> If that statement is given, then it is worthwhile having the JSR
> even if it merely rubberstamps OSGi work.  Think of it as a shared
> legal agreement, rather than a new technology.

This is where I was going before my wife called me down for  
dinner :)  I'll finish the email now and send for review here.

geir

>
> ....Roy


Mime
View raw message