Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jcp-open-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 48839 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2007 20:07:04 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Feb 2007 20:07:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 43330 invoked by uid 500); 15 Feb 2007 20:07:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jcp-open-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 43272 invoked by uid 500); 15 Feb 2007 20:07:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jcp-open-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jcp-open@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list jcp-open@apache.org Received: (qmail 43263 invoked by uid 99); 15 Feb 2007 20:07:11 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:07:11 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: 216.86.168.178 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of geir@pobox.com) Received: from [216.86.168.178] (HELO mxout-03.mxes.net) (216.86.168.178) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:07:00 -0800 Received: from [192.168.1.104] (unknown [67.86.14.213]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5656B51935 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:06:35 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <9F6C42F0-3900-4B91-B1F3-9DD7F003F581@iq80.com> References: <9F6C42F0-3900-4B91-B1F3-9DD7F003F581@iq80.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." Subject: Re: JSR 291 License Update? Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:06:24 -0500 To: jcp-open@apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Not yet. What will matter is the next step in the JCP process. geir On Feb 15, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > It have been about two weeks since we tabled the discussion about > the 291 licensing terms. Has there been any movement towards > getting "proposed final licensing terms"? > > I don't want us to have to discuss the terms against a deadline > again as it tends to make it an argument instead of a discussion. > > -dain