www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Sutter <kwsut...@apache.org>
Subject Re: NOTICE wording in spec
Date Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:47:53 GMT
Excellent!  Let us know when we're "clear"...  Thanks!

Kevin

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:

> This is a non-issue.  We have discussed this with sun separately, and have
> established an agreement (that I have to sign and send back - it was
> approved by ASF legal) that removes such requirements.
>
> I'll post it here once I sign it.
>
> geir
>
>
> On Aug 28, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>> I was requested by Donald to forward this note exchange between Linda
>> DeMichiel (JPA spec lead) and myself (JPA expert group member).  I was
>> trying to get the JPA NOTICES wording loosened up so that we could more
>> easily create Milestone Releases in our Apache OpenJPA project.  It sounds
>> like her hands are tied.  After receiving this reply, I did verify that
>> the key Java EE 6 specs that are led by Sun do have the same NOTICES
>> wording.  But, those specs led by other organizations do not.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Kevin Sutter, Java Persistence API (JPA)
>> mail:   sutter@us.ibm.com, Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM
>> http://webspherepersistence.blogspot.com/
>> phone:  tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
>> http://openjpa.apache.org/
>>
>> ----- Forwarded by Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM on 08/28/2009 08:54 AM -----
>>
>> From:
>> Linda DeMichiel <Linda.Demichiel@Sun.COM>
>> To:
>> Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
>> Date:
>> 08/14/2009 12:45 PM
>> Subject:
>> Re: NOTICE wording in spec
>> Sent by:
>> Linda.Demichiel@Sun.COM
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> I am bound to this wording and cannot change it.
>>
>> -Linda
>>
>>
>> Kevin Sutter wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Linda,
>>> Not sure if this needs to be addressed by the whole group or just
>>> yourself.  Feel free to copy the group on the reply, if it's necessary.
>>>
>>> Since we're looking for a PFD #2 (Thanks!), I'd like to address the
>>>
>> NOTICE
>>
>>> wording 2(iii) on page 2 of the spec.  It's been causing problems with
>>> Apache...
>>>
>>> Current wording:
>>>
>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
>>>
>> under
>>
>>> the Java Community Process
>>> (JCP) and is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only.
>>>
>> The
>>
>>> code is not compatible with
>>> any specification of the JCP."
>>>
>>> The "..is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only." is
>>> what Apache doesn't like.  We've been trying to create interim Milestone
>>>
>>
>>  releases in Apache for OpenJPA along the lines of OpenJPA-2.0.0-M1 or
>>> OpenJPA-2.0.0-M2.  But, any release (even a milestone release) has
>>>
>> certain
>>
>>> requirements.  Apache doesn't differentiate between an alpha, milestone,
>>>
>>
>>  or GA release.  A release is a release.  And, they don't like to have a
>>> release labeled as for "test and evaluation purposes only".  Makes
>>>
>> Apache
>>
>>> sound more like a "toy" than for real production.  And, I agree that a
>>> milestone release would not be used for production, but that's what we
>>> have to deal with.
>>>
>>> So, I would like to modify the wording as such:
>>>
>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
>>>
>> under
>>
>>> the Java Community Process
>>> (JCP). The code is not compatible with any specification of the JCP."
>>>
>>> Doable?  Or, are you bound to some certain wording?  I looked at
>>> BeanValidation and they don't have any wording along these lines.  But,
>>> maybe that's not a fair comparison...  :-)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message