www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] New ASF/JCP Policies
Date Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:33:11 GMT
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.

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.

- robert

View raw message