www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: New "Java LDAP API" JSR progress
Date Tue, 29 May 2007 11:27:38 GMT
On 5/20/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Apache Directory Project committers have been approached by Sun last month
> about our participation to a new JSR effort (Ldap API).

there are some general interesting points about the participation of
apache committers in JSR efforts

IMHO committers participating in cannot really represent apache in the
sense of being a single spokesperson but rather in the sense of
someone who's expertise is acknowledged by apache. when a
specification lead decides to use NDAs then this effectively prevents
any apache representative passing on *any* official feedback on the
specification (since this would require discussion and VOTE with the
other committers).

it is possible to participate in JCP as an independent expert. it
would be interesting to know whether the specification lead was just
looking for independent experts or needed a representative of apache
directory in the sense of someone who could give collective feedback.

> We are of course interested, and we agreed on participating to such an
> effort. But we missed some required steps which are described on
> http://www.apache.org/jcp/ (Thanks Ersin to pointing out those missed steps
> ...)

apache is now concerned about the licensing terms adopted by a
minority pf specification leads. so, this list is no longer

it now appears that some participants in the JCP read the agreement we
made to allow our participation as allow specification leads to
unilaterally at any stage in the process add terms in the TCK
licensing that prevent open source implementations (in general) and
apache licensed implementations (in particular).

so, the main question for the lead must be: what is the license for the TCK?

a subsidiary question is: will the specification process be conducted openly?

- robert

View raw message