www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From BJ Hargrave <hargr...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: JSR 291 - public review
Date Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:35:42 GMT
"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


Mime
View raw message