www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Representation advice for JSR 314
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:38:24 GMT
On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:13 AM, Andrew C. Olvier wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 00:30 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Long live the revolution!  Down with the tyrants of opacity!
> long live honesty.
>> Of course the httpd project does use the donations of closed  
>> technologies
>> when some vendor wants to offer useful data of some source code  
>> scanning
>> mechanism they created, or similar.  We don't care how someone  
>> correctly
>> identifies (and potentially patches) a bug, although nearly every  
>> such
>> service has proven to be a 99.8% waste of time (with a few small  
>> nuggets
>> of gold in them there turds).
> You've disregarded around the "as an official representative of  
> apache"
> part.
>> In your example, we'd (httpd would) simply reject the offer and  
>> keep using
>> the open copy of the framework.
> And yet Apache projects have been the basis a number of JCP things,  
> the
> projects were JCPized, portions of the test kits were moved to closed
> source with NDAs and licensed back to apache, and apache sends  
> REPRESENTATIVES to work ON BEHALF OF APACHE to do the closed source
> development for which the projects then COMPLY using the closed source
> test compatibility kits CO-DEVELOPED BY APACHE with sun using a closed
> process.  And you think that smells like open source and community huh
> and have a problem with labeling said activities and the projects
> involved as closed source?

Oh, stick a cork in it Andy.  As has been pointed out before, you  
a clue about what an NDA is, let alone how licensing works, and in this
regard you are completely wrong on all counts.  What we do is  
in the development of standard interfaces that we can implement
(supposedly) as open source.  Apache doesn't have employees that work
on behalf of the ASF -- it has representatives that can speak for us
when asked.  Our reps are *not* the people doing any work on the
interface, but rather people who are supposed to be ensuring that we
can implement the standard interface as open source when it is done.
The people who are actually doing spec work are invited by the
Spec Lead to participate as individuals.  If you want the board to
make that a formal requirement, then go bug the board.

I rejected the request for a mailing list because the ASF does not
participate on closed EG lists, and certainly won't act as a read-only
forum for someone else's private discussions.  When those discussions
are made public, as in some of the milestone drafts that most EGs make
public now, then the ASF can participate on our normal dev lists.

Pissing and moaning about the existence of closed EG lists should
be directed at the JCP.  Spec leads weren't even allowed to have
open EG lists until Apache pushed through those rule changes.
If you don't think we should be in the JCP any more (like me),
then send that message to the board.  Just stop whining about it
and misdirecting other people to suit your own twisted fancy.


View raw message