Mailing-List: contact jcp-open-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jcp-open@apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <89CA55D5-F04D-46B9-BDCB-D0CD5D3D8CB6@iq80.com>
From: Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com>
To: jcp-open@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <4FE6F761-8F7F-4A70-B698-AE8D37388966@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924)
Subject: Re: discussion : Not for Profit Open Source Community TCK License
 Agreement
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:55:52 -0700
References: <4FE6F761-8F7F-4A70-B698-AE8D37388966@apache.org>

This looks like a good idea, but I'd like to clarify some points (just  
to make sure I'm reading this correctly).

- This would allow the ASF to ship a certified Release of Harmony  
under the ASL 2.0
- Downstream consumers of Harmony could:
         - modify and ship an uncertified release (an uncertified fork)
         - modify and ship certified Release only if they sign this  
contract with Sun and release their software under an OSI approvied  
license
- Apache and non-apache projects could "swipe" bits of code for  
inclusion in their projects under any license (fork a class)

Assuming the above is correct, I think this is an excellent start.

-dain

On Jun 23, 2008, at 8:17 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> All,
>
> The failure of Sun to offer the ASF a Java SE TCK license that JSPA- 
> compliant and acceptable to the ASF doesn't diminish the importance  
> for the Apache Harmony project to be able to use the JCK to  
> demonstrate to users that it's compatible with the specification.
>
> To that end, we are examining alternative approaches to the  
> traditional proprietary/confidential license process.  One such  
> approach is to attempt to count on Sun's publicly stated interest in  
> supporting open-source communities.  Specifically, we started with  
> the the following license that Sun offers to the OpenJDK community  
> and people who make derivative works of Open JDK (like IceTea -  
> congrats!!) :
>
>  http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-tck-license.pdf
>
> and then made some modifications which are neutral and immaterial  
> from the perspective of the JSPA, and in addition, makes the license  
> functional for communities that have their own code under licenses  
> other than the GPL, such as us here at the ASF :
>
>  http://people.apache.org/~geirm/PROPOSAL-NFP-OSI-JCK-20080623.pdf
>
> Note : this is meant to be a starting point for the discussion - the  
> ASF will need to formally review any final version of such a  
> document before acceptance.
>
> The "algorithm" for producing the new license can be described as :
>
> 1) Replace "OpenJDK" with "Not-for-profit open source" : this  
> license is intended for use by any not-for-profit open source  
> project/organization, not just Sun's OpenJDK project, or the ASF for  
> that matter.  Why 'not-for-profit'?  The JSPA requires that any  
> qualified not-for-profit receive any TCK at no cost, so this seems  
> like an appropriate partitioning.
>
> 2) Broaden the applicability to any independent implementation under  
> any OSI approved license.  Freedom is good ;)
>
> Other than a few nips and tucks to make things read clearly and  
> consistently, that's about it.  This license is free of the problems  
> that have plagued previous TCK licenses such as Field Of Use  
> limitations or notice requirements.  While a purist might suggest  
> that limiting to OSI approved licenses is problematic from the POV  
> that the JSPA can't limit the license under which an implementation  
> can be distributed, it's certainly broader than the GPL-only  
> original, and of course we'd be happy to accept that it should be  
> "any license of the implementer's choosing" :)
>
> Anyway, that's it.  I think this is a solid start to an alternative  
> path to find a solution that we all can live with, in a rapid manner  
> to avoid harming the Apache Harmony project any further - it's Sun's  
> license, after all.  I'll be forwarding this to the JCP EC for  
> discussion at tomorrow's meeting.
>
> Comments welcome and appreciated.
>
> geir
>