www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] New ASF/JCP Policies
Date Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:39:54 GMT
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 7/9/07, Daniel John Debrunner <djd@apache.org> wrote:
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> > Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>> >> To abstract out the ASF for a moment. If a 501(c)3 was set up to 
>> develop
>> >> & distribute an open***, free version of a certified Java(tm) for
>> >> research on desktop and server machines, would that be in violation of
>> >> its charitable status because it was only benefiting Sun Microsystems?
>> >> Seems unlikely to me.
>> >
>> > If we can only use the code we develop on General Purpose Computing 
>> Devices,
>> > yet Sun can apply that code to embedded devices (or that only Sun 
>> can license
>> > to use on embedded devices), then we have a problem, Houston.
>> How would Sun do that? They don't own the copyright on the code
>> (Harmony), so they cannot relicence it? They would be subject to the
>> same licence as everyone else. Of course they can develop their own
>> code, but the ASF isn't helping them do that.
>> Or is this assuming a world where Harmony is dual licenced, the source
>> under ALv2 with no claims of it being Java, and a Java certified version
>> with the FOU restrictions? Then Sun could take the code and provide an
>> embedded device version branded with Java. If that's the case then
>> that situation exists today, and accepting any FOU restrictions does not
>> affect anything.
>> Seems unlikely to me that the 501(c)3 could be lost due to this
>> potential of what other companies might do with any software. Are we at
>> risk because ASF software could be used on the iPhone or iPod by Apple
>> and that's benefiting a single vendor?
> the way that the JCP is set up makes things difficult. the JCP is just
> part of sun. by working on a JCP, we are working on behalf of sun.
> this was fine provided that they were working for the public good and
> to further our state purpose.
> our reading of the JSPA was that sun would ensure that the results of
> this work would be relicensed to us under terms compatible with the
> foundation's stated purpose: open source. it now appears that the JSPA
> does not guarantee that the work apache has done for sun is to further
> our stated purpose nor is for the public good.

Right, the work in that JSR, which is no longer going on. Not the work 
in Harmony.

> if apache agreed to relicense harmony under non-open source terms
> including the FOU then this would be of direct financial benefit to
> sun (and sun alone) and would not further our stated aims.

Sorry to be so dumb here, but what is the "direct financial benefit to 
Sun" here? Because we are not releasing code/binaries in a space where 
they have a revenue stream? If we don't release Harmony, it's the same, 
if we release Harmony uncertified under ALv2 it's the same.


View raw message