www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <roy.field...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies
Date Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:59:32 GMT
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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

....Roy

Mime
View raw message