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 Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:22:05 GMT

On Jun 30, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On 6/29/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:57 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>> > On 6/29/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 27, 2007, at 6:57 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Are we going too far to the other side of the pendulum?
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure.  I've been thinking about this for a while, and I'd
>> >> like to offer the following "extreme" position :
>> >>
>> >>     Why not just decide to only use TCKs that have no NDA?
>> >
>> > Do me a favor.  Mark up the existing policies to the way you would
>> > like to see them (much like I did(*)), and we can vote on that.
>>
>> Sure.  While I do that, what do you think?
>
> I think I would rather wait until I see what that means in operational
> terms, i.e., as a marked up version of our policies.

Aka "Fetch me a Rock"?  :)

I'm asking a really simple question here trying to drive to some  
consensus, since operational terms for your suggested changes are  
only implied as well.  Actually, re-reading my sentence, it needs an  
extra word at the end, like "requirement") so that it would be

    Why not just decide to only use TCKs that have no NDA requirement?

Yes, there are operational details there (do we just push everything  
overboard now, or do we let some grace period happen?), but I think  
we should all discuss.

Anyway, whether or not you choose to answer, I reread your suggested  
modifications and think that it tangles a few issues.  If we do  
believe in the principles behind your suggestions,  they should be up- 
leveled so that there's a general ASF policy that our JCP  
participation is compliant with.

For example, your suggested changes state we won't ask for a TCK  
unless the EG that created the spec we're implementing :

"    * Operate in an open, transparent manner in the same way that  
our Apache community lists work
     * Use consensus and/or voting for decision making
     * License their specifications to allow royalty-free  
implementations under an open source license and
     * License their Reference Implementations (RIs) and Technology  
Compatibility Kits (TCKs) in a manner that neither requires an NDA  
for access, nor imposes restrictions that would preclude  
implementation of the original JSR under open source licenses. In  
particular, the license for the TCK may not impose FOU requirements  
on implementations.
"
(There's a big problem with the last bullet - why are we telling  
others how to license their software, the RI? - but lets not get  
distracted...)

Inherent in the above is a statement that we won't implement a JSR  
unless it follows the above rules.  Why only JSRs?  Why not have a  
standard policy about any spec we implement?  The TCK is a "side- 
effect" or "burden" of implementation of a JCP spec, so a "no NDA"  
policy actually solves the problem at hand.  The above points re the  
spec creation is a second thing entirely.

So why we don't cut to the core in what you are suggesting - there  
are two policies there, that should be kept separate.

1) We won't use TCKs that require NDAs.

2) We won't implement standards that don't comply with the above rules.

If we don't have a rule #2, then I can still implement JSRs that  
don't comply with the 4 rules (except for a handful, they all don't,  
to some degree) if the TCK is available to us on terms that don't  
require NDA.

Comments?

geir


Mime
View raw message