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 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:03:49 GMT
On 7/9/07, Daniel John Debrunner <djd@apache.org> wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > 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
> >> >> 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.
> Right, the work in that JSR, which is no longer going on. Not the work
> in Harmony.


some have argued that implementations are derivative works of their
specifications. if you accept this argument then may be the work in
harmony is effected as well.

> > 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.
> Sorry to be so dumb here,

this is definitely not a dumb question

it's great that these assertions are being challenged

> but what is the "direct financial benefit to
> Sun" here? Because we are not releasing code/binaries in a space where
> they have a revenue stream?

sun makes a lot of money from java in the embedded market (mobile phones)

> If we don't release Harmony, it's the same,
> if we release Harmony uncertified under ALv2 it's the same.

releases matter from the patent perspective but i agree it's
orthogonal otherwise

ATM harmony is apache licensed, version 2. if apache were to relicense
harmony under a non-open source license including the FOU then this
would have a direct benefit to sun since their monopoly on java in
mobile phones (and other embedded devices) would be preserved.

- robert

View raw message