www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} Alternate Proposed Changes to JCP Participation - Round
Date Sat, 07 Jul 2007 03:18:02 GMT

On Jul 6, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:

>
> "Finally, JSRs that violate an open environment in terms of licenses
> that add downstream restrictions, whether it be the source that
> implements the specification or the consequences of testing that  
> imposes
> use restrictions, or other restrictions incompatible with the AL  
> 2.0 the
> ASF would regrettably vote against such JSRs."
>
> Maybe I read this as all too over reaching regarding the JSR. Vote
> against the formulation of the JSR, but once we are on it and it  
> becomes
> technical, then I think we are in a different situation, and we are  
> best
> to just pull out.  *That* is my point.
>

Perhaps some wording to clarify this is about new JSRs.  The comment  
was never intended to be retroactive.  That would be just plain silly :)

Although, I'm confused about the voting process at the JCP.  How can  
Sun revise the legal issues without invalidating everyone's vote?   
Seems that the legal issues are a fundamental part of the formulation  
of a JSR.  Looking at this: http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=4216  
more red would have been a clear direction as all the grey looks a  
bit timid.  Perhaps its more political niceness.  If Sun had not  
withdrawn the JSR would it have passed with two yeses and all all the  
abstains?

Mime
View raw message