www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] New ASF/JCP Policies
Date Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:56:56 GMT
On 7/15/07, Wade Chandler <hwadechandler-apache@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- 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 that case, then previous releasers of JSTL have already left Apache
open to possible legal action. And they're on the expert group. And
they're Sun employees.

So I think it would be rather interesting if for some reason I can't
make a release of the Standard Taglib without passing the TCK.

Are there legalese phrases I need to use?

Obviously I can't say something like "a JSR certified JSTL
implementation", but presumably I could say "a JSTL implementation"?

> 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?

For the case I care about - no idea. We've no one active who is/was on the EG.

Hen

Mime
View raw message