www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <jgenen...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies
Date Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:11:34 GMT

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>> My concern here is where we are going with this.  I apologize in advance
>> if I missed something regarding the JCK vs TCK with respect to Harmony.
>>  If I did, please point it out.
>> I asked in a previous email about the open letter to Sun about if anyone
>> has made direct contact with those folks instead of expecting a public
>> response to the open letter.  Calling a company out publicly may be a
>> bit much to expect a public response.  I just hope that we have followed
>> through with the personal side before being heavy handed.  Again, I may
>> have not been privy to past discussions so it possible I am not seeing
>> this with full view.
> We had been doing that continuously for six months prior to the letter.
> The letter was posted because Sun refused to do what they promised us
> in order to keep us in the JCP the last time this came up.

Ok...my late entry to the game ;-)

>> I think the issue of JCK vs TCK and our stance is a difficult one.  I
>> would hope we do not cut off our nose to spite our face.  As I
>> understand it, the JCK is a different testing animal than the TCKs.
>> They test different things AFAICT.
> That is irrelevant.  We only distribute open source.

Great...that is kind of my point...so where is the disconnect then?
Sounds like business as usual for us, no?  We are simply certifying our
wares and distributing open source?

>> The TCKs allow our products to compete in the market place with
>> commercial and other open source offerings (non-Apache).  I think our
>> ability to pass these TCKs allows us to have people in the community
>> want to adopt our products, and ultimately helps us build even more
>> community and followers.  It allows folks to take us really seriously.
>> But stopping or hindering our ability to obtain and use newer TCKs will
>> likely have the effect of people not wanting to adopt some of our
>> products because they are not "certified" or do not pass certification
>> tests.
>> I believe this is a large risk to take because Sun will not bend to a
>> JCK license or has not responded publicly to the open letter.  I think
>> risking several projects' ability to continue adoption due to
>> certification with respect to an issue with Harmony is something we
>> should really examine carefully and weigh the risk vs reward on what we
>> are about to do.
>> I would ask that we see if we have exhausted all efforts to
>> communication with Sun on this issue and do a risk/reward analysis on
>> steps moving forward.
> We have exhausted all steps and there is no further analysis needed.
> Sun refuses to give us a TCK without FOU restrictions.  We can't agree
> to FOU restrictions while distributing as open source.  End of story.
> We shouldn't even be participating in the JCP at this point.

Ok...again my late entry to the game ;-)

>> Thoughts?  Can I help with this somewhere?
> Apache does not need to participate in closed standard groups.
> Apache is fully capable of defining its own standards based
> upon the code produced by the same group of collaborating companies
> that do all the real work with the JCP anyway.

Is it closed or are we simply ambassadors from our representative
projects/Apache where we should theoretically be discussing issues in
the public as for ideas on JSRs and letting these
ambassadors/representatives bring these to the JSR group?  Should we not
be bringing our Apache community ideas representative of the community
and submit those to the JSR?  Sun seems to feel we bring a lot of
credibility to the table (or so I have have told by them specifically).
 If we are being proper Apache representatives, we should be discussing
JSR issues in jcp-open and our respective project dev lists.  Doesn't
that make this proper for Apache?  This all may be moot...but I have to
grok this...so sorry for some of these questions.


> ....Roy

View raw message