www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>
Subject RE: JCP spec licensing (was RE: StAX (JSR 173) API source license)
Date Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:11:20 GMT
"Jim Barnett" <jimb@bea.com> wrote on 04/27/2006 04:57:02 PM:

> Thanks Jeff.
> 
> To be clear, I wasn't advocating for or against Sun's interpretation
> of the JSPA on the issue of Spec License requirements.  Rather I was
> questioning whether the interpretation Sun offers on that point 
> (when taken as being correct for sake of argument only) is logically
> effective at preserving compatibility given that there is no 
> requirement for downstream licensees to maintain compatibility when 
> they modify otherwise compatible implementations.

Got it.  At the end of the day, the JSPA is a series of bilateral 
agreements with Sun and its up to each of the two parties to determine 
what they believe the language means.  I'm merely suggesting that people 
look really closely at what the language actually says before accepting 
Sun's interpretation.

> 
> While there are plenty of reasons why downstream licensees would 
> choose maintain compatibility of implementations, my point was that 
> nothing in the JSPA requires that downstream licensees be compelled 
> contractually to maintain compatibility of implementations, even 
> when they make changes to and further distribute the modified 
> implementations. 

Right.  That was specifically discussed during the drafting. 

> 
> It seems like there's an incongruity between the position that 
> implementers should be contractually required to pass the TCK in 
> order to distribute their implementations, and the position that it 
> is acceptable for any party licensing those implementations to 
> freely modify so as to make them incompatible and further distribute
> the modified implementations.  If you allow the latter, why be so 
> insistent on the former?  It smacks of dogmatism rather than reason.

Right, it doesn't make sense to me for the Spec Lead to require that all 
implementers pass the TCK when the licensees of the implementers do not 
have to do so. 

> 
> Against this backdrop, conditioning use of the Java compatibility 
> logo on passage of the TCK makes much more sense than gating 
> distribution of independent implementations on passage of the TCK. 
> 

We're on the same page.  Clear and accurate representation of 
compatibility. 

> Jim
> 
Jeff

Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation  (914)766-1757  (tie)8-826  (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus  (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/ 


Mime
View raw message