Mailing-List: contact jcp-open-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jcp-open@apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <87fy5zrnm2.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com>
References: <19e0530f0705122026l4403918bt8903c8fce0a1cf4d@mail.gmail.com>
 <87fy60wmah.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com>
 <152428CC-E05D-41B9-A529-79BB3B93EFA1@pobox.com>
 <87bqgowk42.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com>
 <B3537C8F-48A9-4665-8295-EADDD78F2981@pobox.com>
 <87irawupnx.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com>
 <2d12b2f00705140849x3c8dcd7djf5a44e09d10e5c28@mail.gmail.com>
 <87d513tei8.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com>
 <F1AF2A40-137B-497A-BB77-D1D506D00F94@apache.org>
 <878xbrt9n0.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com>
 <2d12b2f00705141451o4d3e4220v4fa7723be6953781@mail.gmail.com>
 <87fy5zrnm2.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <10FF3CB4-B5E7-47CF-9EDC-9A720AB9F218@apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 19:36:37 -0400
To: jcp-open@apache.org


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