Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR?

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 7/1/07, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <geir@pobox.com <ma...@pobox.com>>
> wrote:
>     On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Initially the contested Java SE JSR, and later any related/later JSR's of
>> the same technology by the same spec lead, and finally - every JSR who's
>> spec lead is in persistent violation of the mutually agreed-upon terms
>> of the JSPA.  This seems only rational, no?
> 
> That would be every Sun-led JSR.

That's a broad overgeneralization.  Sun has been less flexible with the J2SE,
J2EE specs, while being more flexible with others.  What I was saying is that
the successor to the flawed J2SE (is that JSR 270?) would automatically be
nixed until there was affirmative proof that issues have been addressed.

> IMO this would be a tactical mistake. not only do sun lead some very
> important JSRs but some specification leads from sun run completely
> transparent operations. our aim should be to effect change in the
> process. arguing about the meaning of the terms of the JSPA leads to the
> trap of making this a legal dispute rather than an ethical one.

+1

> i think that it would be more effective to target particular named
> individuals than corporations. AIUI Mark Reinhold runs this JSR. i think
> it would be stronger to publicly blacklist him on the basis that his
> word cannot be trusted. apache should announce that (in front) they will
> vote against every proposal with which he is associated and blacklist
> all JSRs that he leads.

As we said, MR is at the mercy of his organization (just as our experts
are at our mercy, in their role as ASF members, to follow our policies).

Blacklisting him-the-individual is foolish...

> apache could and should publicly blacklist that JSR

and IT'S successors until the situation is corrected.  Not 'his' per say.

Of course, if it's a pattern of MR mismanaging JSRs that he leads, then
it's no longer the messenger, and I won't disagree.

> i'd like to pose a related question: are the chances of effecting
> meaningful change within the JCP worth the cost of the present imperfect?
> 
> I'd say that up until the Java SE TCK, the answer is yes.  I'd also
> say that the Java SE TCK collision with Sun will be viewed as an
> important milestone - we've shined light into one of the remaining
> dark corners of the JCP.  (The other remaining is Java ME)
> 
> I think that the core issue behind the Java SE TCK is less about the
> license terms, and more that Sun has been able to control things due
> to a web of commercial relationships where business pragmatism kept
> things quiet.  Things are no longer quiet.  We've woken a sleeping
> giant.

+1, which is why I'm concerned about putting this at MR as an individual.
There are certain specs that apparently Sun does NOT want to be open, and
we should no longer participate on the expert groups of those JSRs.

> a declaration is worth only as much as the word of the individual
> leading the specification.  is there any reason not to insist on the
> actual license for non-profits to be issued before the vote?

Certainly before the final call.

> but this is really only about changing our own rules

Or as folks point out, shine the flashlight on what we -will- participate
in, and downplay the converse of that.

> the GPL3 has finally been issued/ apache should now take the offensive
> and move the battle onto ground more favourable to us. we should propose
> and lead an ethics process JSR. the aim would be to examine how the JCP
> process can be improved to allow greater participation by non-profit and
> academic organisations and the general public, and examine specification
> lead ethics.

Interesting idea.  But as the JSPA already spelled these things out, there
is not much another document will do to correct a signatory who ignores it.

Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR?

[robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

On 7/2/07, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > IIRC one of the sun blogs stated that lawyers at sun have argued that
> > JSPA does not mean anything like this
>
> Link please?

sadly i didn't note it down at the time

> For Sun Legal to say that would be, uh, interesting.

at the time i took it to be nothing at all to do with sun legal

- robert

Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR?

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

On 7/2/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IIRC one of the sun blogs stated that lawyers at sun have argued that
> JSPA does not mean anything like this

Link please?

For Sun Legal to say that would be, uh, interesting.  -- justin

Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR?

[robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

On 7/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > On 7/1/07, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <geir@pobox.com <ma...@pobox.com>>
> > wrote:
> >     On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

<snip>

> > the GPL3 has finally been issued/ apache should now take the offensive
> > and move the battle onto ground more favourable to us. we should propose
> > and lead an ethics process JSR. the aim would be to examine how the JCP
> > process can be improved to allow greater participation by non-profit and
> > academic organisations and the general public, and examine specification
> > lead ethics.
>
> Interesting idea.  But as the JSPA already spelled these things out,

IIRC one of the sun blogs stated that lawyers at sun have argued that
JSPA does not mean anything like this

> there  is not much another document will do to correct a signatory who ignores it.

as a non-profit, participation in a process that is run for benefit of
a single corporation is very difficult. if the current process does
not (as we thought) guarantee that non-profits are able to participate
then the process needs to change. JSRs are the way that these
processes are changed.

AIUI JSPA suffers from a hub and spoke architecture: everyone has
agreements with sun. this means that sun is able to bully any player
who is too small to sue.

(interestingly, a similar structure with similar weaknesses has been
set up for OpenJDK)

- robert

Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR?

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:47 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>> On 7/1/07, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <geir@pobox.com  
>> <ma...@pobox.com>>
>> wrote:
>>     On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Initially the contested Java SE JSR, and later any related/later  
>>> JSR's of
>>> the same technology by the same spec lead, and finally - every  
>>> JSR who's
>>> spec lead is in persistent violation of the mutually agreed-upon  
>>> terms
>>> of the JSPA.  This seems only rational, no?
>>
>> That would be every Sun-led JSR.
>
> That's a broad overgeneralization.

No, it's a fact.  Sun is the spec lead on every Sun-led JSR.  Our  
position is that Sun is in violation of the JSPA.  Therefore...


> Sun has been less flexible with the J2SE,
> J2EE specs, while being more flexible with others.  What I was  
> saying is that
> the successor to the flawed J2SE (is that JSR 270?) would  
> automatically be
> nixed until there was affirmative proof that issues have been  
> addressed.

No.  That gives the the spec lead the ability to misbehave and exert  
extra-JSPA control in areas where they wish, and still remain a  
citizen in good standing.

We have one agreement with Sun.  That's the JSPA.  They are in  
violation of it...

geir