www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Request for JSR 200 TCK (changed subject)
Date Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:12:34 GMT
The spec license that JSR 200 download page directs me to is the Java  
SE 5 license, which is consistent with the intent to release this JSR  
only as part of Java SE 5. What am I missing?

Specification: JAVA 2 PLATFORM STANDARD EDITION
DEVELOPMENT KIT 5.0

Specification ("Specification")

Status: Final Release

Release: August 25, 2004

Regards,

Craig

On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> Go get the spec.  Read the spec license.
>
> geir
>
> On Feb 2, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Looking at the JSR 200 page on the tck web site http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=200

>>  it looks to me like there was no intent to make 200 available as  
>> an independent JSR.
>>
>> <<
>> 2.13 Please describe how the RI and TCK will de delivered, i.e. as  
>> part of a profile or platform edition, or stand-alone, or both.  
>> Include version information for the profile or platform in your  
>> answer.
>> This JSR will be delivered as part of J2SE 1.5 "Tiger".
>>
>> 2.14 Please state the rationale if previous versions are available  
>> stand-alone and you are now proposing in 2.13 to only deliver RI  
>> and TCK as part of a profile or platform edition (See sections  
>> 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 of the JCP 2 document).
>> N/A
>>
>> 2.15 Please provide a description of the business terms for the  
>> Specification, RI and TCK that will apply when this JSR is final.
>> This JSR will be delivered as part of J2SE 1.5 "Tiger". The  
>> proposed J2SE 1.5 licensing terms are available here http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/jsr/tiger/BizTerms.html
>>
>> >>
>>
>> I don't see anything here to indicate that the spec was intended to  
>> be licensed for independent implementation... And "On 2004-09-13  
>> Apache Software Foundation voted Yes with no comment." http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=2774
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2009, at 6:23 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> I will - this is important.  It can't be the case that a spec lead  
>>> doesn't have to provide a TCK if the spec is licensed for  
>>> independent implementation.
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>> On Feb 2, 2009, at 4:27 AM, Sian January wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the update Geir.  Would be great to keep pushing for  
>>>> 200 if you can.
>>>>
>>>> Sian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2009/1/29 Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com>:
>>>>> I have!
>>>>>
>>>>> Current status on outstanding :
>>>>>
>>>>> 311: waiting for "executive signature" on the license  (I  
>>>>> dropped off a
>>>>> signed copy a little over a week or so ago when I was in bay area)
>>>>>
>>>>> 200: there is no standalone TCK for this JSR.  I've suggested  
>>>>> that they make
>>>>> one, or just give us the Java SE5 TCK.  THe spec lead was  
>>>>> required to
>>>>> deliver a TCK for this.
>>>>>
>>>>> 196: waiting on internal Sun legal for a license for us to sign.
>>>>>
>>>>> geir
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 29, 2009, at 1:02 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you managed to uncover anything :-) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 18, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, nor 200.  There's a stall somewhere.  I'm digging.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 18, 2009, at 2:49 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com

>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any progress on this one?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 9, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thx for the reminder.  I've sent the application for
the  
>>>>>>>>> license (full
>>>>>>>>> disclosure - this reminded me).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They don't come back this fast btw - 200 is also still
 
>>>>>>>>> pending approval
>>>>>>>>> by the board.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll see what I can do to usher this forward.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> geir
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:19 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's been a week.... any progress on this?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> many thanks
>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of course!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2008, at 8:20 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Geir,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have an implementation of jaspi for geronimo
I'd like  
>>>>>>>>>>>> to test
>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=196).  The
final release  
>>>>>>>>>>>> of this spec was
>>>>>>>>>>>> on 10 Oct 2007.  Could you please see if
we can get the  
>>>>>>>>>>>> tck for it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> many thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with  
>>>> number 741598.
>>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,  
>>>> Hampshire PO6 3AU
>>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message