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 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:37:57 GMT

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?

We will need to address existing communities - maybe do one more  
version? - but if we really feel that NDAs are completely at odds  
with our community values, then it applies to all ASF communities.

>
> Not accepting new NDAs for existing projects could be a roadblock  
> to building communities.  I think it would be more appropriate to  
> limit ASF use of TCK's that are restrictive beyond what we find  
> acceptable as far as restrictions on consumers down the line.

Nope.  That's not the point here.  Our TCKs place *zero* restrictions  
on consumers down the line - we wouldn't be using them otherwise.

>
> One question I have on the FOU restriction for the Java TCK is what  
> would happen if we did certify Harmony with the TCK under its  
> current terms?

We couldn't ship under the Apache license.

> I would assume that this means that people that download a  
> certified binary would have to be shot if they used it in a Kiosk.

It's hard to tell what Sun would do.  But Sun has been very clear in  
their intention to hold back any of their necessary IP for that  
usage.  I can only assume they intend to defend such IP.


>   But what if someone grabbed the code from a particular release  
> and built it themselves.  Are they under the terms of the license?   
> I would think presumably not as the certification is on a binary  
> and not an svn rev number.  IANAL so I don't know the ramifications  
> of this scenario.

That is correct.  If you make a derivative work of an apache project,  
it isn't the apache project.

>
> I guess my point is we should evaluate what TCKs and projects we  
> participate in based on their individual merits and not do a  
> sweeping non-NDA position going forward.  I think the license is  
> freedom of expression and if folks have limitations in them we  
> don't like we don't have to work with the IP.

I consider myself a pragmatist in this area.  I've fought for years  
to hold the position you are holding.  I'm reconsidering my POV given  
the side effects - we can't be "partially pragmatic".  Either we  
accept the inconveniences of the NDA crap, or just make a stand and  
only use TCKs that have nothing like that.  BEA produces them, for  
example.

It's just a test kit for heaven's sake

geir


>
>
>
> On May 14, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> As of yet, we have not received acceptable licensing terms for JCK
>> needed for Harmony certification, nor have we received an official
>> response to the open letter[1].
>>
>> It is time for the ASF to stop supporting activities which are
>> fundamentally inconsistent with our continued operations as a
>> non-profit 501(c)3 charity.
>>
>> It is time to draft a new set of JCP policies.  Here's a draft:
>>
>>  http://people.apache.org/~rubys/jcp.html
>>
>> Feedback welcome.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html
>>
>


Mime
View raw message