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 Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:10:30 GMT
--- Sam Ruby <rubys@apache.org> wrote:
> On 7/11/07, Wade Chandler
> <hwadechandler-apache@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > In either case, if the licensing terms are not
> part of
> > the process then to me this brings up the real
> issue
> > for any of the next or to be JSRs and is something
> > which should be addressed. Meaning, the licensing
> > terms should become part of the voting process
> whether
> > a JSR passes or not, and it needs to be more than
> a
> > simple majority type thing where members can bring
> > these cases to the EC or some other impartial
> body.
> > These issues with licensing should be worked out
> ahead
> > of time and not be left to after the fact as, per
> what
> > we know thus far with this issue, they have just
> as
> > much implication as the specification itself.
> JSR 306 (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=306)
> proposes to consider
> this, as a rev of the JSPA.  JSR 306 started in
> 4Q06, and if history
> is any guide, will take a number of years to
> complete; at which point
> new JSRs proposed after that point will start to
> convert over to that
> version of the JCP, and after they proceed through
> their own
> multi-year cycle will be expected to comply.
> Of course, all this is predicated on that part of
> the proposal
> actually making it through the process, which is not
> guaranteed.

I know Sun has been mentioned a lot here as for the
issue at hand with 176, but it is worth noting, IMO
anyways, that Sun is the specification lead of 306
which to me sounds promising per the conversation
which has been going over 176. I know, as with most
things, these things moving fast is always going to be
good for some, but then for others it won't be. 

I think part of the issue with JSRs in general though
is they are investments, and without the investments
most of us (including OSS developers) wouldn't have
much to do. I think in the end it looks like these
things are being worked on. So, hopefully you Apache
folks will review 306 carefully and try to get issues
such as the 176 issues resolved in it. It might take
some time, but surely it isn't a hopeless cause.

If the 176 issue can not be resolved in the way as
being suggested by the letter, or until it is, could
Apache not release a version of Harmony which has been
tested which is considered and called compatible and
maybe call it Harmony JSR176 Release (I'm sure someone
can come up with something better) and then have
another release and call it (as it is today) Harmony,
not call it certified or even call it a Java Runtime
or JDK but the Harmony Runtime and HDK, and then say
it is 100% compatible with the Harmony JSR176 Release
and can be distributed as pleased? Anyways, not the
end result hopefully, but something which seems
workable while continuing to work on the process and
not give up and fragment the Java community.


View raw message