www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wade Chandler <hwadechandler-apa...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] New ASF/JCP Policies
Date Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:50:24 GMT
--- Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> On 7/14/07, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jul 14, 2007, at 5:10 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> >
> >
> > I want to do a Jakarta Standard Taglib release
> soon (JSTL spec). If
> >
> > someone can tell me that 'Yes, you can release
> without the TCK', which
> >
> > I think we've been doing anyway, then I've no
> interest in running the
> >
> > TCK.
> > The JSTL Specification appears to have the same
> legal text as the one I
> > previously quoted from the Java EE 5 spec (which
> impacts Geronimo).  Since
> > this is test case for a specific component Roy
> get's his wish and we have
> > one small test case to look at.
> >
> > IANAL and really don't care to be.  That said, we
> find ourselves immersed in
> > legal discussions so I'm hoping that someone
> qualified to speak on IP law
> > (and not our desires) can chime in here so we can
> get a dogmatic read on the
> > license, the past and direction for the future.
> >
> > It seems to me we are kind of stuck with TCKs but
> I agree with you Henri
> > that life would be far easier without them.
> I'll go further :)
> Apache have made many releases of the JSTL
> implementation - by the
> expert group with their Apache hats on. The TCK has
> afaik, never been
> run for the Apache release for any of these
> releases. It was run for
> the official RI, which was a copy of the Apache code
> released at
> java.sun.com.
> Thus - I don't see why I need to run the TCK for the
> upcoming release.
> Unless I hear otherwise, I'm not going to be running
> the TCK, we
> haven't run it before.

I think in cases where the other side (as in the JSR
176 issue...not sure about others) is not following
the agreement and the piece at odds with the legal
agreement is the part being left out you have good
legal standing. If the TCK for the JSTL is not in
breach as the license of the TCK for JSR 176 then you
leave Apache open to possible legal action. 

In the case of 176 and the licensing issue, then no
sensible company would try to sue over it unless they
had a horrible legal team. Their breach of the JSPA is
what would cause you to follow through or ignore parts
of the agreement as the TCK license was after the fact
of the initial JSR vote and agreement on the
specification. So, to get the issue resolved all
agreements would come into the dispute and their
mistake or intended breach would have to first be
repaired before anything could move forward...unless
they were really corrupt and had a paid off judge ;-).
Anyways, it would just be easier for them to fix the
license up front as they would never win in
court...not legally.

The JCP2 page states that the process should include a
review of the license terms of the JSR specification,
RI, and TCK as part of the approval process and it
even states this in two sections. Has any of this been
happening or have organizations been voting on these
JSRs without any knowledge of the licenses? It seems
to me this is a very crucial part of the process and
while I know JSR 306 is to address this to some degree
it is already in the JCP2 processes at:

which would hopefully be taken into account with each
JSR and not just rely on the spec leads comments such
as: The license will be like what we agreed to at some
other time. I would insist the license be reviewed as
it will be when released and this be integral voting:


The Spec Lead's company or organization is responsible
for the Reference Implementation (RI) and Technology
Compatibility Kit (TCK) and its licensing under terms
compatible with the licensing guidelines established
for use within the JCP. The Spec Lead will provide the
EC with confirmation of the terms under which the RI
and TCK will be licensed at each review period. EC
members will provide feedback on the terms as an
indication of how the community might react as a whole
to the terms. "


View raw message