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 19:48:04 GMT

On May 14, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:

> "Henri Yandell" <bayard@apache.org> writes:
>
>> On 5/13/07, Joe Schaefer <joe+apache@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've also reviewed the resources for spec leads available at
>>>
>>> http://jcp.org/en/resources/guide
>>>
>>> and the template licenses are chock-full of Field-of-Use provisions.
>>> How does one know which JSR's can be safely implemented in open
>>> source?
>>
>> I think the answer there should be 'one asks Apache'. We need to
>> publish our definition of openness for JSRs - the JCP page pretty  
>> much
>> has that, but we're either adding the no-FOU or no-Veto to that. Then
>> we need to list the JSRs that can be considered open.
>
> But how do we go about constructing such a list if the terms
> of the spec are not available to the general public?  Furthermore,
> we can't simply base it on the fact that we have been able to
> successfully negotiate open-source compatible terms in the past,
> assuming the spec lead may offer different terms to different
> implementors on a case-by-case basis.

I actually have no problem with the fact that the spec lead can offer  
different terms to different people.  What we must have is a publicly  
known set of terms delivered at final review, which remains publicly  
posted.  This is an element in the JCP that's missing, and something  
that several of us have been pushing for in the current JCP process JSR.

>
> I think the policy should be trust-but-verify, so the public
> has an opportunity to catch any mistakes we may have made in
> our assessment of the openness of any particular JSR.

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.  Augment that with forcing the requirement that a "minimum  
TCK license" be made and kept publicly available, and  I think we're  
in great shape.

geir



Mime
View raw message