Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jcp-open-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 29077 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2007 02:00:33 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Jul 2007 02:00:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 24681 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jul 2007 02:00:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jcp-open-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 24564 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jul 2007 02:00:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jcp-open-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jcp-open@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list jcp-open@apache.org Received: (qmail 24555 invoked by uid 99); 5 Jul 2007 02:00:34 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:00:34 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of joe@sunstarsys.com designates 64.139.134.58 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.139.134.58] (HELO mail.sunstarsys.com) (64.139.134.58) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:00:28 -0700 Received: from gemini.sunstarsys.com (mumonkan.sunstarsys.com [65.12.220.185]) by mail.sunstarsys.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l652068H018521 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:00:06 -0400 Received: from gemini.sunstarsys.com (joe@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gemini.sunstarsys.com (8.14.1/8.14.1/Debian-4) with ESMTP id l65200CJ001555 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:00:00 -0400 Received: (from joe@localhost) by gemini.sunstarsys.com (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l65200Ra001554; Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:00:00 -0400 From: Joe Schaefer To: jcp-open@apache.org Subject: Re: Are proprietary TCK's compatible with open standards? References: <468C3166.5020903@apache.org> Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:00:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <468C3166.5020903@apache.org> (Sam Ruby's message of "Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:46:46 -0400") Message-ID: <878x9v7gpr.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Sam Ruby writes: > Dalibor Topic[2]: > > "Proprietary software should not be allowed to be tied in as a > fundamental part of an open standard in any form." > > "It doesn't matter if such software comes from IBM, Sun, Oracle, > BEA, Red Hat, Google, Nokia, or someone else. It doesn't really > matter what the restrictions are, either." > > "If the TCK is proprietary, a JSR needs to be voted down, until it > is resubmitted with that bug fixed." > > My initial thoughts: is this step necessary? No, not if there are > viable other alternatives. Is this sufficient? Actually, yes. It > would neatly solve both the FOU and NDA issues. It has the added > benefit of addressing the behavior as opposed to the person. I can see how it resolves the NDA issue, but does it really resolve the FOU also? The FOU problem AIUI isn't with the licensing on the TCK software for Harmony, it's in how the results of the test may be interpreted. FWIW I wouldn't mind at all if we changed our voting on JSRs along those lines, but it might be problematic at this point to refuse to accept TCK licenses that are not open source. Especially when people are complaining about refusing them over NDAs, which are actually quite dangerous if they're really about protecting trade secrets. God forbid there is some interesting technique in the TCK that gets carried over into the project. In any case, IMO we *must* stop entering into NDAs in order to negotiate the terms of the TCK, open source or not. -- Joe Schaefer