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 Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:28:01 GMT
 See inline...
--- Wade Chandler <hwadechandler-apache@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Well, I think that is the main idea of the JCP. To
> protect the base and keep from fragmenting it. You
> can
> have an EE server and it have other libraries etc in
> it and have different code. You can have a JVM and
> it
> have other libraries/packages in it. You just can't
> make the changes to the areas specifically defined
> by
> the specification as unmodifiable otherwise you
> don't
> have the right to implement the specification. Look
> at
> the different C++ implementations, Unix, sure we can
> find others. Writing a C++ library and using it with
> other C++ implementations just doesn't work per the
> nutty name mangling etc...anyways, slight tangent,
> so
> back on point. 
> 
> The 176 specification license states:
> "You need not include limitations (i)-(iii) from the
> 
> previous paragraph or any other particular "pass 
> through" requirements in any license You grant 
> concerning the use of your Independent
> Implementation 
> or products derived from it. However, except with 
> respect to implementations of the Specification (and
> 
> products derived from them) that satisfy limitations
> 
> (i)-(iii) from the previous paragraph, You may 
> neither: (a) grant or otherwise pass through to your
> 
> licensees any licenses under Sun's applicable 
> intellectual property rights; nor (b) authorize your
> 
> licensees to make any claims concerning their 
> implementation's compliance with the Spec in
> question."
> 
> So, as far as what the folks do with your code after
> the fact is up to them with regard to 176. They just
> can't claim they are in compliance with the
> specification, and I don't know what IP is in
> question
> as the specification isn't IP and its license
> doesn't
> grant any specific IP sub-licenses nor does the
> specification mention anything other than other JSRs
> as far as sub-specifications are concerned. Are
> there
> some other JSRs where the specification license is
> in
> question? The license refers to Sun source code etc
> which is specifically theirs I assume, however, if
> the
> used source code were to come from another OSS
> project, such as OpenJDK, then this won't apply
> unless
> the GPLv2 is an issue. 
> 
> So, yes, as you said, one can not call it JEE or
> Java
> or even Geronimo as that is your projects name, but
> they can take the code and use it and even change
> it.
> If the TCK states otherwise then it should not. I
> haven't seen the text of that license, but the JSPA,
> states this:
> "B. License to Create Independent Implementations.
> For
> any Specification produced under a new
> JSR, the Spec Lead for such JSR shall offer to grant
> a
> perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up,
> royalty free, irrevocable license under its
> licensable
> copyrights in and patent claims covering the
> Specification
> (including rights licensed to the Spec Lead pursuant
> to Section 4.A and 4.C) to anyone who wishes
> to create and/or distribute an Independent
> Implementation of the Spec. Such license will
> authorize the creation
> and distribution of Independent Implementations
> provided such Independent Implementations"
> 

This might make this more clear by putting this here:
provided such Independent Implementations
"(a) fully implement the Spec(s) including all its
required interfaces and functionality;
(b) do not modify, subset, superset or otherwise
extend the Licensor Name Space, or
include any public or protected packages, classes,
Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor
Name Space other than those required/authorized by the
Spec or Specs being implemented; and
(c) pass the TCK for such Spec.
For the purposes of this Section 5.B, patent claims
covering the Specification shall mean any claims for
which there is no technically feasible way of avoiding
infringement in the course of implementing the
Specification."

> Which isn't binding on a specific JSR license, and
> as
> such the JSE 1.5 specification license is more
> liberal. Apache can work to fill in this gap as part
> of JSR 306 and try to get the JSPA changed to make
> all
> JSR licenses act as the 176 specification license in
> which end licensees can extend and modify the
> software, and of course if the TCK imposes some
> other
> restrictions which are invalid per the JSPA then I
> think they need to be resolved.
> 
> Wade
> 
> --- Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:
> > Wade,
> > 
> > I think we are talking by each other.  I think
> this
> > boils down to one  
> > simple issue.
> > 
> >    Is the intellectual property only licensed to
> > compliant  
> > implementations of the specification?
> > 
> > If so, I don't see how this fits with the ASF. 
> > FWIU, anyone should  
> > be able to use, modify and redistribute
> derivatives
> > of ASF software.   
> > Specifically, someone should be able to modify
> > Geronimo (JEE5 tested  
> > and certified) to make it non-compliant and still
> > have the ability to  
> > sell such a non-compliant derivative work.  Of
> > course they could not  
> > call it JEE or Geronimo, but they should be able
> to
> > sell their binary.
> > 
> > Assuming all derivative works must be compliant
> with
> > the spec in  
> > order to receive the core IP rights contained in
> the
> > software, then I  
> > don't see how it qualifies for sections 3 and
> > section 7 of the OSI  
> > open source definition
> > (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd).
> > 
> > -dain
> > 
> > On Jul 11, 2007, at 7:54 PM, Wade Chandler wrote:
> > 
> > > But the license doesn't say you need any extra
> IP
> > etc.
> > > It states you pass the TCK, and it doesn't even
> > > elaborate beyond that other than satisfying the
> > > requirements of the TCK user guide. What are the
> > > requirements of the TCK user guide? Can these be
> > > shared for analysis? Does the TCK license
> > specifically
> > > deny one organization passing the TCK for an
> > others
> > > sources?
> > >
> > > If part of passing the TCK is some type of IP
> > approval
> > > then ok, but if not then I don't see how it
> > applies to
> > > some other restriction as it is not specifically
> > > stating it. With a clean room implementation
> there
> > is
> > > nothing which is patented as you are not using
> > code
> > > you are just implementing the required
> interfaces
> > > which the specification license explains are
> yours
> > > (anyones) royalty free as long as the 3 terms
> are
> > > adhered to, and the 3rd term (iii) doesn't say
> who
> > > runs the TCK just that it passes it.
> > >
> > > So, I think the TCK terms can play on this
> > depending
> > > on  the limitations of what it can be run
> against,
> > but
> > > the spec license doesn't say anything (other
> than
> > the
> > > TCK user manual) in the TCK license affects the
> > > specification license other than just passing
> the
> > TCK.
> > > For it to hold up in court it would certainly
> have
> > to
> > > be specific and not leave room for
> interpretation,
> > and
> > > I believe as it does not say who must run the
> TCK
> > and
> > > pass the TCK for a given source base it
> certainly
> > > leaves room for interpretation. This is without
> > seeing
> > > the TCK license or the user manual.
> > >
> > > Wade
> > >
> > > --- Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The problem is "and (iii) passes the TCK
> > (including
> > >> satisfying the
> > >> requirements of the applicable TCK Users Guide)
> > for
> > >> such
> > >> Specification".  I think that the full text is
> > >> effectually saying,
> > >> "we'll give you the copyrights and patents
> (that
> > we
> > >> can) as long as
> > >> the code passes the TCK".  The problem is that
> > >> getting a TCK is not
> > >> easy and without acquiring a TCK license from
> the
> > >> owner you do not
> > >> have the rights to execute derivative the code.
> 
> > In
> > >> the past, people
> > >> have said that "if you don't pass the TCK you
> > simply
> > >> can't call it
> > >> Java" (or what every the brand is), but I
> believe
> > >> this text is saying
> > >> "without the TCK you don't have a license for
> the
> > IP
> > >> required to
> > >> execute the code".
> > >>
> > >> So, if a TCK is required to obtain the IP
> > necessary
> > >> to legally
> > >> execute the code, and a TCK can cost money, I
> > think
> > >> we have an
> > >> additional restrictions beyond the ASL.
> > >>
> > >> -dain
> > >>
> > >> On Jul 11, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Wade Chandler
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> --- Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:
> > >>>> On Jul 9, 2007, at 3:45 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 7/9/07, Ralph Goers
> > >>>> <Ralph.Goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> I guess I still don't completely
> understand.
> > >>>> Apache code is
> > >>>>>> licensed under
> > >>>>>> the ASL. If I, as an indidual, ran the TCK
> > >>>> against Harmony and
> > >>>>>> announced
> > >>>>>> to the world that it had passed, why would
> > >> anyone
> > >>>> be affected? All
> > >>>>>> I have
> > >>>>>> done is run a utility program against my
> > >>>> binaries. How can the act of
> > >>>>>> doing that change the ASL for the rest of
> the
> > >>>> world?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Running the TCK gives us the magic
> > certification
> > >>>> which in turn gives
> > >>>>> the ASF the necessary patent licenses to
> > legally
> > >>>> redistribute the
> > >>>>> binaries.  -- justin
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This is a huge concern of mine.  If we
> believe
> > >> that
> > >>>> we can not
> > >>>> distribute this code without running the TCK,
> I
> > >>>> think this creates
> > >>>> all sorts of problems for us.  For example,
> > lots
> > >> of
> > >>>> Apache projects
> > >>>> "Release" uncertified milestones and
> snapshots
> > >> which
> > >>>> I'm not sure we
> > >>>> could do if there was a patent restriction. 
> > The
> > >>>> biggest issue is
> > >>>> downstream recipients of the code.  If they
> > >> modify
> > >>>> the code or build
> > >>>> from source, they would be using an
> uncertified
> > >>>> binary without patent
> > >>>> licenses, and I believe that constitutes a
> > >>>> downstream restriction.
> > >>>> My very simple understanding of the ASL
> doesn't
> > >>>> allow for such
> > >>>> restrictions.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't believe this is an issue (unless
> > something
> > >> in
> > >>> the TCK license counters this). One can get
> the
> > >>> specification and implement it. Also it seems
> > the
> > >>> specification license mentions passing the
> TCK,
> > >> but it
> > >>> does not expressly define who should run the
> TCK
> > >> or
> > >>> that each and every build (surely just those
> > where
> > >>> changes took place are concerned) be tested:
> > >>> "Sun also grants you a perpetual,
> non-exclusive,
> > >>> worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free,
> limited
> > >>> license (without the right to sublicense)
> under
> > >> any
> > >>> applicable copyrights or patent rights it may
> > have
> > >> in
> > >>> the Specification to create and/or distribute
> an
> > >>> Independent Implementation of the
> Specification
> > >> that:
> > >>> (i) fully implements the Spec(s) including all
> > its
> > >>> required interfaces and functionality; (ii)
> does
> > >> not
> > >>> modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend
> the
> > >>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or
> > >>> protected packages, classes, Java interfaces,
> > >> fields
> > >>> or methods within the Licensor Name Space
> other
> > >> than
> > >>> those required/authorized by the Specification
> > or
> > >>> Specifications being implemented; and (iii)
> > passes
> > >> the
> > >>>
> > >>> TCK (including satisfying the requirements of
> > the
> > >>> applicable TCK Users Guide) for such
> > >> Specification.
> > >>> The foregoing license is expressly conditioned
> > on
> > >> your
> > >>>
> > >>> not acting outside its scope. No license is
> > >> granted
> > >>> hereunder for any other purpose."
> > >>>
> > >>> Thus, it doesn't even say the person
> performing
> > >> the
> > >>> test should be the actual owner of the TCK nor
> > >> limit
> > >>> the sources the TCK can be run against. Now,
> the
> > >> TCK
> > >>> license may have some other restrictions which
> > >> counter
> > >>> this, but someone with their hands on that
> > license
> > >>> would have to definitively answer that one.
> So,
> > it
> > >>> seems one can say they implement the
> > specification
> > >> as
> > >>> long as it passes the TCK. Passing the TCK is
> > just
> > >>> passing it unless there is another process
> where
> > >> as
> > >>> the name of the company the source belong, who
> > ran
> > >> the
> > >>> test, etc have to also be included and
> > certified.
> > >>> Again though, this means one has to have the
> > >> license
> > >>> and the users guide to know all these
> things...I
> > >> don't
> > >>> have a TCK.
> > >>>
> > >>> Wade
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message