www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: JSR 291 - public review
Date Tue, 23 Jan 2007 01:43:06 GMT
Hi BJ,

On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:26 PM, BJ Hargrave wrote:

> This all seems to be a discussion that is not appropriate at Public  
> Review
> time.

The JCP made specific changes in the JSR process to provide more  
transparency in licensing terms, by requiring a summary of terms at  
submission, and not waiting until Final Ballot.

<jcp 2.6>
EC member feedback is important to the Expert Group, and EC members  
are encouraged not to wait until ballot periods to voice concerns and  
issues.
</jcp 2.6>

This was done deliberately to avoid people thinking that the  
licensing would be X but at the final ballot finding out that the  
terms would actually be Y.

My issue is that all of the assertions made in this email thread  
about the lack of implementation restrictions and the intent to  
license the specification for free should have been in the  
distributed materials. If the intent is to distribute the  
specification under the license terms of JSR 232, that should be in  
the 291 materials and not require everyone to guess or ask.

> Final licensing terms are not due under the JCP until Final Ballot,
> at which time a discussion in the license terms would be  
> appropriate. The
> discussion at PR time should be focussed on the technical merits.

That's not how I read the JSR process. See my comments above.

>
> Craig.Russell@Sun.COM wrote on 01/22/2007 06:28:31 PM:
>
>> I am not a lawyer either, but the licensing of this JSR makes me
>> nervous.
>>
>> Without clarification of the license terms (which are supposed to be
>> crystal clear by this phase of the JSR process) I don't think I would
>> approve it.
>
> I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. This is just  
> Public
> Review and the license for the draft specification is a draft
> specification license,  not the final license which is not due in  
> the JCP
> until Final Ballot.

Generally, Sun's specification license (used by specifications with  
Sun as spec lead) reads in part:

<spec license>
2. _License for the Distribution of Compliant
Implementations_. Sun also grants you a perpetual,
non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, fully
paid-up, royalty free, limited license (without the
right to sublicense) under any applicable copyrights
or, subject to the provisions of subsection 4 below,
patent rights it may have covering the Specification
to create and/or distribute an Independent
Implementation of the Specification that: (a) fully
implements the Specification including all its
required interfaces and functionality; (b) does not
modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the
Licensor Name Space, or include any public or
protected packages, classes, Java interfaces, fields
or methods within the Licensor Name Space other than
those required/authorized by the Specification or
Specifications being implemented; and (c) passes the
Technology Compatibility Kit (including satisfying the
requirements of the applicable TCK Users Guide) for
such Specification ("Compliant Implementation").
</spec license>


>
>>
>> There is no explicit grant of license in the review materials that I
>> can see that allows anyone to implement the specification. This is
>> simply a review-and-comment license, not an implement-and-use  
>> license.
>>
>
> No draft JSR in review will include a full implement and use  
> license. Can
> you provide a counter example? Don't forget, this is just Public  
> Review
> and not Final Ballot.
>
> The license on this draft JSR is more generous than any other draft  
> JSR I
> am familiar with. It does not require you to destroy the document  
> at the
> end of the review, it does not prohibit you implementing the
> specification, it does limit your ability to distribute the draft to
> others. Its only purpose is to prohibit you from creating aq  
> derivative
> specification which is entirely reasonable.
>
>> <license>
>> ...
>> Publication of this draft specification is not intended to provide
>> the basis for implementations of the specification.
>> ...You may copy and display this draft specification provided that
>> you include this notice and any existing copyright notice.  Except
>> for the limited copyright license granted above, there are no
>> other licenses granted to any intellectual property owned or
>> controlled by any of the authors or developers of this material.  No
>> other rights are granted by implication, estoppel or otherwise.
>> </license>
>>
>> There is no indication that the license to implement the
>> specification (including a license for the included patents if any)
>> will be available at terms acceptable to Apache. For example, there
>> is no royalty figure provided by the "proposed licensing terms" in
>> the original JSR.
>>
>> <original JSR>
>> IBM will license the specification to all interested parties. The TCK
>> and RI will be licensed separately.
>> </original JSR>
>>
>> The way I read this, the specification might be licensed at
>> $1,000,000 per year for unlimited use, or $500 per CPU, or any other
>> "non-discriminatory" license scheme.
>
> Your $1,000,000/yr example is just just being deliberately  
> inflamatory.

Reasonable people might disagree.

> The same silly example can be applied to JSR 277. If you read the  
> next 2
> lines of the JSR filing, you will see a $50K cap for RI and TCK  
> (which was
> used as an upper bound place holder until final licensing terms are  
> set).
>
> There will no licensing fee for the specification. There has never  
> been
> one for OSGi (nor will there be) or JSR 232. If you go to
> http://www2.osgi.org/Main/OSGiSpecificationLicense, you will see the
> specification license that will be used for the Final  
> specification. It is
> the same license used for JSR 232 specification.

I have just read the JSR 232 Final Release and the JSR 271 materials  
and there is no mention of the license you refer to above. The  
license associated with the specification specifically disclaims its  
use for implementations.

I think this thread is all about connecting the dots. There are too  
many dots to connect and too many assumptions to be made that 271  
plans to be licensed according to the 232 model. I think one would  
have to be an OSGi insider to infer this from the provided materials.

Now that you have clarified the intended licensing model, I have no  
objections.

Craig

>
> As I mentioned in a previous post on this subject, we intend to use  
> the
> Equinox open source implementation as the (free) RI.
>
> And, as required by the JCP, qualified open source organizations like
> Apache will be provided no-cost licenses to the TCK.
>
>>
>> I may be missing something (but since there is not a lot of reading
>> material, I doubt it).
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Jan 22, 2007, at 10:35 AM, BJ Hargrave wrote:
>>
>>> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir@pobox.com> wrote on 01/22/2007  
>>> 01:17:41 PM:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 22, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Glyn Normington wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22 Jan 2007 at 08:35:29 Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 consideration.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm simply confused then.  The license in the OSGi document says :
>>>>
>>>> "The OSGi Alliance hereby grants you a limited copyright license to
>>>> copy and display
>>>> this document (the "Distribution") in any medium without fee or
>>>> royalty. This
>>>> Distribution license is exclusively for the purpose of reviewing  
>>>> and
>>>> providing
>>>> feedback to the OSGi Alliance."
>>>>
>>>
>>> This refers to the specification itself. You are not allowed to
>>> create a
>>> derivative specification. No JSR would allow that. To be clear, an
>>> implementation of the specification is not a derivative work of the
>>> specification (certainly as far as OSGi or IBM are concerned).
>>>
>>>> Am I allowed to implement this?
>>>
>>> Yes. Experience from implementation can be used as a tool to review
>>> and
>>> provide feedback. The license is intended to allow this and there is
>>> nothing in the license to prohibit. It was OSGi's desire to gain
>>> feedback
>>> from open source groups during spec review. Equinox is implementing
>>> this
>>> draft and it may well be that Knopflerfish and Felix are also. This
>>> license is much more generous than many JSR review licenses (I have
>>> seen)
>>> in that it does not require to you to destroy the draft
>>> specification or
>>> any implemation of it at the end of the review period.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> can you explain it?
>>>
>>> I am not a lawyer (and I don't even play one on TV), but as I
>>> understand
>>> it, the JCP requires the spec lead to make certain patent grants on
>>> necessary patents the spec lead owns. IBM, as the spec lead, will of
>>> course fulfill those obligations. For 232, Motorola and Nokia  
>>> were the
>>> spec leads and successfully fulfilled those same obligations.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BJ Hargrave
>>> Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
>>> OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
>>> hargrave@us.ibm.com
>>>
>>> office: +1 407 849 9117
>>> mobile: +1 386 848 3788
>>>
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ 
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
>
> BJ Hargrave
> Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
> OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
> hargrave@us.ibm.com
>
> office: +1 386 848 3788
> mobile: +1 386 848 3788
>

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message