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 Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:18:02 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>> So three of those options continue Sun's monopoly, is any one of those
>> worse in terms of 501(c)3 than the others? 
> 
> YES.  Working AGAINST one parties economic interests is as harmful as working
> to the BENEFIT of one parties interests.  It has to be a neutral field.

Sorry, which one out of these three is worse than the others and why?

>> 1) Release harmony under ALv2. Preserves Sun's monopoly in the embedded space for
Java(tm) technology. [don't call it Java, ignoring patent & trademark issues for this
discussion]
>> 
>> 2) Release harmony with FOU restrictions. Preserves Sun's monopoly in the embedded
space for Java(tm) technology.
>> 
>> 3) Give up, drop harmony. Preserves Sun's monopoly in the embedded space for Java(tm)
technology. 


> Despite assurances during the last 12 rounds the ASF and Sun went at it,
> we find the status quo still does not assure the LEVEL playing field that
> ASF participation demands.

Wouldn't trying to remove a monopoly be "Working AGAINST one parties 
economic interests"?

I'm really trying to separate what the ASF would like to do from what 
the US Government *requires* for 501(c)3. I just can't see how a 501(c)3 
(not the ASF) that accepted the FOU from Sun would be in violation of 
anything. They would just be focused on technology in a certain area, 
they wouldn't be required under any rules to also expand into other 
areas because one company has a monopoly there. No-one has answered that 
yet, just the dubious claim that releasing harmony with FOU restrictions 
would directly benefit Sun, without any explanation of how or why.

Dan.


Mime
View raw message