Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 60064 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2006 08:33:38 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Apr 2006 08:33:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 50029 invoked by uid 500); 27 Apr 2006 08:26:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 49815 invoked by uid 500); 27 Apr 2006 08:26:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 49801 invoked by uid 99); 27 Apr 2006 08:25:59 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:25:59 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=10.0 tests=MISSING_HEADERS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [134.96.188.26] (HELO mail.dfki.de) (134.96.188.26) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:25:58 -0700 Received: from mail.dfki.de (localhost.dfki.uni-sb.de [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F451E4953 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:25:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dave [134.96.184.220]) by mail.dfki.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2FFE494F for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:25:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <44507FFD.2080905@apache.org> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:25:33 +0200 From: Paul Libbrecht Reply-To: polx@apache.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Macintosh/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Legal Discuss Subject: Re: JCP spec licensing (was RE: StAX (JSR 173) API source license) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Dittert, Eric wrote: > The licensing of a JCP specification does have conditions placed on it > by the JSPA (http://www.jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/JSPA2.pdf). > IANAL, but it appears to me that AL2 does not meet those conditions. It is probably not fair to blame Jonathan for insisting that those > conditions be adhered to. > My opinion as "consumer" of these specs, or at least the source code of their APIs : I dare say that if this is true the whole JCP and its outcomes is something I should take more time to mistrust. I hope strongly to have this cleared in favor of an Apache Public License possible licensing which, I thought, Sun was politically somewhat supportive of (they have more and more Open-source corporate advertisement). Actually, wasn't JAXP donated to ASF ? (e.g. see [1]) Would it also be constrained by such ? paul [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2005/board_minutes_2005_08_17.txt --------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and policies of the ASF. See for official ASF policies and documents. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org