www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: No NDAs? Or open TCKs?
Date Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:33:49 GMT

On Jul 3, 2007, at 4:17 AM, Bill Barker wrote:

> "Mladen Turk" <mturk@apache.org> wrote in
> message news:4689F02C.1050604@apache.org...
>> Bill Barker wrote:
>>> teams at Tomcat and Geronimo have done really great things with  
>>> their
>>> implementations of their respective specs, so I don't think that  
>>> it is
>>> really fair to penalize them with an asterisk on their sites that  
>>> they
>>> aren't officially certified just because of the dust up with  
>>> Harmony.
>> I don't agree with you (at least for the reason).
>> Apache projects are not the islands.
>> IMHO clarifying the NDA/TCK issues would help all ASF projects
>> so they can call them self spec compliant instead using pseudo-TCKs.
>> Not sure if the same TCK issues are of concerns for Geronimo or
>> Tomcat as they are for Harmony, but FOU can be a real problem
>> even for a simplest product that needs to pass the TCK.
>> However like said, not sure if a Servlet TCK has a FOU, and
>> if not we would be fine (if we were island).
> The current NDA (to the extent that it has been explained to me,  
> IMNAL) that
> applies to Geronimo and Tomcat simply prevents publishing the tests
> (including details where one or the other fails a specific test).   
> At the
> moment, there is no FOU on the current Servlet/JSP TCK that I know of.

That is correct.  We would never accept such a thing.

> The
> NDA is an agreement between the individual committer and Sun, as  
> consenting
> adults (like I've said before, I've personally forgone access to  
> the TCK for
> Tomcat because of this).

No - the NDA is an agreement between the ASF and the committer.  The  
ASF is the licensee for the TCKs, and we are providing them to the  
committers.  There is no forced relationship with Sun.

> However, I understand Justin's concerns, and I
> agree (non-binding) that the ASF should not vote in favor of any JCP
> proposal that includes a FOU.

LOL.  That wasn't the reason why we didn't vote yes yesterday :)  The  
spec lead stated that there would be no FOU.  Whether or not we  
believe him is another story, but that was the statement.

People, please  - lets get these facts straight.  I'm here to answer  
any questions.


>> Regards,
>> Mladen.

View raw message