www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: jcp-open Digest of: get.703_703
Date Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:38:37 GMT
Ralph Goers wrote:
> Hey, it is just wording that lawyer's can fix. It was meant to spawn


> Actually, I disagree with your observations about the GPL. I think many
> folks are comfortable using it in many situations, and many GPL projects
> are doing quite well. Secondly, while I agree with your observations
> that the amount of code available at Apache, and its quality, I don't
> agree that the current license makes it "powerful", although it is what
> makes it popular and highly used.  In fact, by design the current
> license effectively gives away any power the licensor may have.

I think you entirely missed my points.  First...

I was referring to the many changes in GPLv3 that meet with resistance for
the users of GPLv2.  We already watch many discussions of why some widely
distributed projects have no plans to move from GPLv2 to GPLv3. That was
the allegory of adding more terms and conditions to the AL.

Secondly, we've seen many 'non-ASF' projects pick up the AL 2.0 because
it does exactly what it was ment to do :)  It is ment to put the 'power',
so to speak, in developer's hands.  The idea you expressed would add
restrictions to the developer who personally participates in standards
activities, or worse - whose employer or coworkers do.  This isn't even
to mention the 'end user'.  (This is in contract to the GPL, which
actually focuses the power in the user's hands).

> My feeling is that if the ASF wants to have any leverage than the only
> effective way it can do that is through the license. I am not saying it
> needs to be as "heavy" as the GPL, but just something that keeps people
> honest. Something that says if you are going to call it open than it has
> to be open enough that the ASF can implement it. If you don't want to do
> that then don't make the spec public and don't call it open, and then
> you won't be violating our license.

But your clause doesn't apply to the licensed code.  It touches everything
the individual/company does, which makes it unjustifiably viral.

> The idea of abandoning the JCP seems a lot like saying "we are taking
> our toys and going home".  If that means the other kids won't have toys
> to play with it might mean something, but if they already have a pretty
> full toy box and some other friends to play with they aren't going to
> care much.

Well, there are three schools of thought right now.  Stay in each JSR and
attempt to effect change-from-within (which has worked to some degree for
the past several years.)  Withdraw support and EG participation from JSR's
which present unacceptable restrictions or opaque standards development
processes.  Or withdraw from the JCP entirely.

Until Sun unjustifiably wields its Veto pen, I don't believe leaving the
JCP altogether does either organization any good.  Leaving specific,
closed/restricted JSR's says "the ASF can't participate on this specific
proposal in good conscious", and leaves us free to develop competing and
open standards.  Staying in the wrong sandbox leaves us open to 'guilt
by association' when specific JSR's use our good name to undermine open
source implementations of that standard.

View raw message