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: [VOTE] New ASF/JCP Policies
Date Mon, 16 Jul 2007 05:06:56 GMT
Could we break this into a new thread? ... I think this particular  
one is getting a tad bit unwieldily.  Is that ok with you Henri ?

On Jul 15, 2007, at 11:56 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

> On 7/15/07, Wade Chandler <hwadechandler-apache@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> --- Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On 7/14/07, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Jul 14, 2007, at 5:10 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I want to do a Jakarta Standard Taglib release
>> > soon (JSTL spec). If
>> > >
>> > > someone can tell me that 'Yes, you can release
>> > without the TCK', which
>> > >
>> > > I think we've been doing anyway, then I've no
>> > interest in running the
>> > >
>> > > TCK.
>> > > The JSTL Specification appears to have the same
>> > legal text as the one I
>> > > previously quoted from the Java EE 5 spec (which
>> > impacts Geronimo).  Since
>> > > this is test case for a specific component Roy
>> > get's his wish and we have
>> > > one small test case to look at.
>> > >
>> > > IANAL and really don't care to be.  That said, we
>> > find ourselves immersed in
>> > > legal discussions so I'm hoping that someone
>> > qualified to speak on IP law
>> > > (and not our desires) can chime in here so we can
>> > get a dogmatic read on the
>> > > license, the past and direction for the future.
>> > >
>> > > It seems to me we are kind of stuck with TCKs but
>> > I agree with you Henri
>> > > that life would be far easier without them.
>> >
>> > I'll go further :)
>> >
>> > Apache have made many releases of the JSTL
>> > implementation - by the
>> > expert group with their Apache hats on. The TCK has
>> > afaik, never been
>> > run for the Apache release for any of these
>> > releases. It was run for
>> > the official RI, which was a copy of the Apache code
>> > released at
>> > java.sun.com.
>> >
>> > Thus - I don't see why I need to run the TCK for the
>> > upcoming release.
>> > Unless I hear otherwise, I'm not going to be running
>> > the TCK, we
>> > haven't run it before.
>> >
>>
>> I think in cases where the other side (as in the JSR
>> 176 issue...not sure about others) is not following
>> the agreement and the piece at odds with the legal
>> agreement is the part being left out you have good
>> legal standing. If the TCK for the JSTL is not in
>> breach as the license of the TCK for JSR 176 then you
>> leave Apache open to possible legal action.
>
> In that case, then previous releasers of JSTL have already left Apache
> open to possible legal action. And they're on the expert group. And
> they're Sun employees.
>
> So I think it would be rather interesting if for some reason I can't
> make a release of the Standard Taglib without passing the TCK.
>
> Are there legalese phrases I need to use?
>
> Obviously I can't say something like "a JSR certified JSTL
> implementation", but presumably I could say "a JSTL implementation"?
>
>> The JCP2 page states that the process should include a
>> review of the license terms of the JSR specification,
>> RI, and TCK as part of the approval process and it
>> even states this in two sections. Has any of this been
>> happening or have organizations been voting on these
>> JSRs without any knowledge of the licenses?
>
> For the case I care about - no idea. We've no one active who is/was  
> on the EG.
>
> Hen
>


Mime
View raw message