www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Poole <spoole...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: JSR-326 Project proposal
Date Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:19:41 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2008, at 5:43 AM, Steve Poole wrote:
>> Greetings - I thought it was worth posting to this list the fact that 
>> I have created an incubator project proposal for JSR 326. I work for 
>> IBM and am the spec lead for the JSR. The JSR ( 
>> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=326) is concerned with creating a new 
>> API for postmortem JVM Diagnostics.
>> My proposal needs mentors and a champion.
> happy to be both a mentor and a champion
> Thanks Geir - much appreciated. I'll update the proposal accordingly. 
> Can you give the proposal the once over and let me know what else you 
> think needs addressing before we can call a vote?
>> It seems to me that one of the areas we will need help in is 
>> concerned with the fact that we want to run the JSR development in an 
>> open way. Effectively the aim is that the spec will fall out of the 
>> RI. There are and will be interesting questions in attempting to 
>> develop spec and RI in this way. For instance how much of the JCP 
>> process is actually applicable when a project is completely open and 
>> how to position an "expert group" when the whole project is open to 
>> the community.
> Well... all of it. There should be no real problems. The only concern 
> I can think of is ensuring that you get a grant of "necessary IP" from 
> each participant such that implementations of the spec aren't going to 
> be encumbered by someone (like Sun) willing to use their patent 
> portfolio to control who can create implementations and what they can 
> do with them.
> For code, the Apache license and ICLA is sufficient. The only edge 
> case I can see would be non-code contributions via the mail list where 
> a person could steer the group to an encumbered solution. While all 
> posts to ASF mail lists are deemed to be a contribution under the same 
> terms as the AL, I'd a) make that explicit like we did w/ Harmony and 
> b) double check w/ legal-discuss that the theory is sound.
> Fantastic!
> geir
>> The proposal is here http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/KatoProposal
>> Steve Poole

View raw message