www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies
Date Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:46:54 GMT

On Jun 30, 2007, at 2:57 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 29, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/29/07, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>> I proposed some concrete wording 6 weeks ago (as of next  
>>>> Monday).  It
>>>> got three plus ones, but recently this thread has meandered off  
>>>> into
>>>> other directions.
>>>
>>> +1 to your suggested policy changes.
>>>
>>> I'd also be okay if we make it retroactive and withdraw from any EG
>>> that doesn't adhere to the new terms - though I understand that may
>>> cause us considerable pain and may temporarily force some  
>>> projects not
>>> to be able to release because they won't have TCK access any more.
>>> Yet, it's a good way to force the matter to a resolution by bringing
>>> our participation within the JCP to a screeching halt.  -- justin
>>
>> Lets be clear and keep things separate :
>>
>> 1) Using TCKs under NDA.  That is independent of whether or not we  
>> are
>> part of the EG - there's no necessary relationship.
>>
>> 2) Participating in EGs.
>
> I'd be happy, as a first step, for the ASF to withdraw from all
> dysfunctional EG's which clearly don't produce open specifications,
> irrespective of NDA's, who is the lead, etc.

Can you define "open specification" in this context?

The specs that come out of the JCP are supposed to be able to be  
implemented in open source.  That's why we're still in the JCP.  In  
the case of the Java SE TCK, Sun is in breach of their contract (from  
our POV).

>
> Second step, do we use TCK's that are under NDA?

We work with the Sun TCKs under NDA.  We have a TCK from BEA that  
doesn't require it.

>
> Third step, do we withdraw from EGs that are only constructed under
> the blinds of NDAs?

All EG activity is  considered under NDA by default, unless the EG  
works in the open.

>
> The bit about "the ASF won't use a TCK under NDA" is new.  I don't  
> think
> we need to be retroactive.  I don't think we need to "spring" this  
> on our
> friendly EGs.  Let them come to a conclusion.

What?  Either we believe that working under NDA is unacceptable, or  
we don't.  Previously, we accepted it as a necessary evil.  Now,  
we're not so sure :)  But I can't see how we can claim it's based on  
principle if we are arbitrary and capricious in it's assertion.

>
> A new EG?  Sure, lets insist on a open TCK, or at least sans-NDA.

We do that already.

>
> But backspace to EGs we participate in that are more deeply flawed.
> Let's extricate the foundation from those, first.

That's fine.  But don't tangle this with the "using the TCK" issue.   
They are completely separate.

geir


>
> Bill
>


Mime
View raw message