www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glyn Normington <g...@apache.org>
Subject Re: JSR 291 - public review
Date Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:05:36 GMT
On 22 Jan 2007 at 08:35:29 Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:

 > On Jan 22, 2007, at 3:27 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
 > > On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:11 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
 > >> Well, I hope you are aware of that a JSR is not required to provide
 > >> the RI and TCK "for free". The RI and TCK is available for licensing.
 > >
 > > Apache should vote "No" unless *all* of the following are true:
 > >
 > >   1) The specification is completely provided by the JSR publications
 > >      (i.e., we don't need to jump through some other license hoops
 > >      in order to read it);
 > The OSGi spec is included in the package, but under a different license.
 > >
 > >   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.
 > Glyn?

There is nothing in the JSR 291 PR draft license that prohibits 
implementation, but bear in mind that this is a DRAFT spec, and 
consistent with other JCP public review draft specs it is being 
distributed for evaluation, including implementations intended for 
evaluation. IBM is trying not to be restrictive, but as a draft spec it 
is subject to change and therefore implementors must take that into 

 > >
 > >   5) The technology defines something useful for Java.
 > Yes, that's clear here.  OSGi is good stuff.
 > >
 > >> Nothing different from other JSRs.
 > >
 > > Every JSR Spec Lead has the choice of a wide range of options to make
 > > it easier (or harder) for independent implementations, and that choice
 > > has widened over time.  They are all different.
 > >
 > > I don't think it matters if OSGi gets a rubber stamp.  What matters is
 > > that the result is specified accurately, readably, and in a form that
 > > we can implement.
 > There's a disconnect in IP flows - and I'm sure Glyn can comment.   
 > The JSPA requires that patents reading on specific contributions to  
 > the spec that are owned by the contributor are licensed to users and  
 > distributors of compatible implementations in a RAND and royalty-free  
 > basis.  How will JSR291 bridge the gap, given that the contributors  
 > to the OSGi spec aren't bound by the JSPA?

This is not a new issue and it has already been addressed and resolved 
by JSR232 in the ME space. JSR 291 will follow the same path.


View raw message