www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Date Mon, 14 May 2007 23:36:37 GMT

On May 14, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:

> "Henri Yandell" <bayard@apache.org> writes:
>
>> On 5/14/07, Joe Schaefer <joe+apache@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
>>> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm@apache.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Again, I think that we'd be better served sticking to our guns  
>>>> here -
>>>> that the JCP is open because of the changes pushed through by  
>>>> the ASF
>>>> in 2002.
>>>
>>> Could I get a Chapter and Verse or full-quote of the text in the  
>>> JSPA
>>> we are basing that opinion on?  I have read
>>>
>>> http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/announce/ 
>>> LetterofIntent.html
>>>
>>> but I haven't been able to figure out how this was codified
>>> in the JSPA we signed.
>>
>> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-agreement.html is what I know of.
>
> The problem is that we actually voted no on JSR 99:
>
> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?j=99&t=7&c=1

Read it carefully.  That's just the community draft.  We said no,  
people agreed with us, we still got out voted.

But didn't matter - we made a point.  See what happened at the end,  
in the final approval vote :

http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=1379

>
> What I'm looking for are explicit terms in the contract which
> proscribe Sun's FOU restrictions.

You're not going to find

   "spec lead isn't allowed to have FOU restrictions"

anywhere.  However, I think we do a good job in the openletter of  
pointing out how such a thing isn't allowed

   http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html

Have you read that?

geir




Mime
View raw message