xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From di...@covalent.net
Subject Re: the story continues... JSPA community draft ballot results
Date Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:42:37 GMT

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Steven Noels wrote:

> Sad, but true:
>
> http://jcp.org/jsr/results/99-7-1.jsp

Do not despair - you got something good - some biggies being quite vocal
and supportive of a standpoint univocally attributed to apache -and-
generally considered as reasonable and lofty. And rightly so !

The above page, and comments, are public. And this will be seen and will
be picked up by the industry.

Really - the pressure is all on SUN to fix things. And some big companies
have said in public that they expect tangible fixes.

Good work guys !

Dw
-- 
Dirk-Willem van Gulik


Comments From http://jcp.org/jsr/results/99-7-1.jsp:

>From On 11-Mar-2002, Apple voted YES with the following comment:
Apple fully supports the issues that have been  raised by Apache and
others, but the new JSPA represents a good step forward relative to the
current one.  W On 11-Mar-2002, Apple voted YES with the following
comment:
Apple fully supports the issues that have been  raised by Apache and
others, but the new JSPA represents a good step forward relative to the
current one.  We believe taking this to community review may provide the
input that is needed to refine the JSPA before it goes to public review.
During the community review, we would like to work with the PMO to refine
the JSPA to better reflect the needs of those participating in open source
efforts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11-Mar-2002, HP voted YES with no comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11-Mar-2002, Borland voted YES with no comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11-Mar-2002, Fujitsu voted YES with no comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11-Mar-2002, Oracle voted YES with no comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** On 11-Mar-2002, Macromedia voted NO with the following comment:
The free and creative spirit of the JCP should be directly and clearly
manifested and protected legally. The major objections from the open
source community argue that this is not the case, and we feel that the
current language does not directly quell these concerns. We would like to
see the issues that Apache raises on behalf of the open source community
resolved in the JSPA itself before moving forward.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** On 11-Mar-2002, BEA voted NO with the following comment:
After considerable soul searching, BEA has decided to vote NO on this
revision of the JSPA. While considerable effort has been exerted by all
concerned and significant progress has been made, we still are not
convinced that this JSPA would provide the level playing field we have
long advocated for Java technologies. The concerns voice by Apache and the
open source community is one avenue of concern as is the autocratic power
that continues to be vested in spec leads enabling them to attempt
mischief to obtain competitive advantage by controlling both the pace of
innovation and the availability of that innovation to the marketplace.
Unless and until these issues can be satisfactorily addressed, we prefer
to stick with our current agreements.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11-Mar-2002, Caldera voted YES with the following comment:
Caldera agree with a lot of the concerns expressed by Apache.  We would
like to see more to be done to protect the interests of open source
providers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** On 11-Mar-2002, Compaq voted NO with the following comment:
Compaq shares Apache's concerns and IBM's concerns that the JSPA proposed
revision provides insufficient protection for interests of open source
providers and competitors (as enumerated at

http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-position.html). Compaq must therefor
vote no on this proposed revision

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11-Mar-2002, IONA voted YES with no comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 09-Mar-2002, Doug Lea ABSTAINED FROM VOTING with the following comment:
I share most of Apache's concerns. However, I also think that it would be
useful to open this up to

the scrutiny of all JCP members, not just the EC.

These two factors cancel themsleves out, hence I

abstain.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 08-Mar-2002, Nokia Networks voted YES with no comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** On 06-Mar-2002, IBM voted NO with the following comment:
IBM has consistently worked within the Java Community Process since its
very inception to create a truly open environment with a level playing
field where no single vendor has the ability to exert unnecessary control
over Java technologies for their own proprietary advantage.  While the
current draft of the JSPA is an improvement over prior agreements, we
believe we should do more to guarantee specifications, implementations and
test suites developed under this agreement will be developed with a
broader view of Java communities in mind, and to guarantee they are
licensed under terms and conditions that allow the widespread adoption of
compliant Java technologies. The JSPA amendments proposed under JSR 99 do
not provide these guarantees.



IBM has always believed it is absolutely critical the Java community
include Apache as well as the rest of the open source community in order
to ensure the long term health and competitive vitality of the Java
environment.  As a result, IBM is fully supportive of the open source
community's need for Sun resolve all the issues raised by Apache at
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-position.html directly and
unambiguously in the JSPA agreement itself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** On 05-Mar-2002, Apache voted NO with the following comment:
Apache is unsatisfied the JSPA revision provides sufficient protection

for our interests (as enumerated at

http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-position.html).  While we and others

have worked long and hard on the JSPA revision and believe we have

made progress from the previous JSPA, we cannot support a legal

agreement which does not unequivocably satisfy these requirements.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 05-Mar-2002, Sun voted YES with no comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message