You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> on 2010/01/19 16:11:57 UTC
OSGi CT access
I'd like to confirm the process for gaining access to the OSGi CT.
An ASF committer can:
* submit an NDA -- http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
* send a request on jcp-open, presumably with an simple explanation of why they would like access to the CT (e.g. I'm working on the Apache Aries project and would like access to the OSGi CT).
Is that about right?
--kevan
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> So, go ahead and submit your NDA and I'll send you the CT.
>
I already send an NDA some time ago (recorded here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/foundation/Correspondence/JCP/tck-nda-list.txt)
As this is a general NDA I guess this should be enough, however if
required I can resend it.
So please send me the CT for some Felix related work.
Thanks
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 2/16/10 5:54 PM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 16.02.2010 10:24, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, sounds good to me.
>>>
>>> Those with an NDA submitted and wanting OSGi CT access, speak up and I
>>> will verify and provide access.
>>>
>
> Excellent.
>
>
>
>>>
>> Cool, so here is the ref to my nda:
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/foundation/Correspondence/JCP/tck-nda-list.txt
>>
>
> My NDA is also listed there and I would like to get access to check the
> Apache Felix Compendium service implementations I am working on. Thanks.
>
I see Carsten's listed in the referenced file, but not yours, Felix. I
do see your NDA in the documents section, so I think it is ok to send
you the CT.
I am not sure about the protocol for editing the above tck-nda-list.txt
file, but if it is ok for me to edit it, then I can add you Felix and
record you two as having received the OSGi CT. As for your NDA pdf, I am
not sure where this is supposed to be filed.
-> richard
> Regards
> Felix
>
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 16.02.2010 10:24, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> Ok, sounds good to me.
>>
>> Those with an NDA submitted and wanting OSGi CT access, speak up and I
>> will verify and provide access.
Excellent.
>>
> Cool, so here is the ref to my nda:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/foundation/Correspondence/JCP/tck-nda-list.txt
My NDA is also listed there and I would like to get access to check the
Apache Felix Compendium service implementations I am working on. Thanks.
Regards
Felix
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Ok, sounds good to me.
>
> Those with an NDA submitted and wanting OSGi CT access, speak up and I
> will verify and provide access.
>
Cool, so here is the ref to my nda:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/foundation/Correspondence/JCP/tck-nda-list.txt
:)
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 2/16/10 5:12 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> that would certainly be fine. The NDA was written not just with JCP materials in mind, but anything that might come along in the future.
>
Ok, sounds good to me.
Those with an NDA submitted and wanting OSGi CT access, speak up and I
will verify and provide access.
Thanks!
-> richard
> geir
>
> On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:52 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>
>> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>
>>> So, how do we move forward on this MOU plan?
>>>
>>>
>> Any news on this front? I thought that having submitted the NDA is more
>> than is needed to get the access.
>> So maybe we could deliver to people how have already signed the NDA
>> while the new form is not there yet?
>>
>> Regards
>> Carsten
>> --
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>
>
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
that would certainly be fine. The NDA was written not just with JCP materials in mind, but anything that might come along in the future.
geir
On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:52 AM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> So, how do we move forward on this MOU plan?
>>
> Any news on this front? I thought that having submitted the NDA is more
> than is needed to get the access.
> So maybe we could deliver to people how have already signed the NDA
> while the new form is not there yet?
>
> Regards
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> So, how do we move forward on this MOU plan?
>
Any news on this front? I thought that having submitted the NDA is more
than is needed to get the access.
So maybe we could deliver to people how have already signed the NDA
while the new form is not there yet?
Regards
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
So, how do we move forward on this MOU plan?
-> richard
On 1/20/10 7:52, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Shall we move forward on our organizational desire to get out of the NDA business?
>
> When I put the NDA together some years ago, it was based on my view that we as a corporation needed something tangible with which we could demonstrate that we were taking reasonable steps to provide oversight over confidential materials that we licensed and were obligated to keep confidential.
>
> However, the OSGi CT is different - it doesn't require a formal NDA (AIUI).
>
> That said, I do think it's really valuable to have a "Memorandum of Understanding" or "Agreement for Licensed Materials" so that people have to acknowledge to us that such materials aren't open source, or things that can be redistributed at will, but a document without the formal burdens of confidentiality and liability upon the signer.
>
> For example :
>
> 1) That materials provided are licensed by the ASF for the use by and only by ASF projects.
>
> 2) That the recipient will use reasonable care when using such materials (whatever that means).
>
> 3) The recipient understands that they are not to be distributed to or used by 3rd parties.
>
> If nothing else, this gives us a solid leg to stand on in the event a person mishandles the materials....
>
> geir
>
>
>
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>
>> On 1/19/10 10:11 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to confirm the process for gaining access to the OSGi CT.
>>>
>>> An ASF committer can:
>>>
>>> * submit an NDA -- http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
>>> * send a request on jcp-open, presumably with an simple explanation of why they would like access to the CT (e.g. I'm working on the Apache Aries project and would like access to the OSGi CT).
>>>
>>> Is that about right?
>>>
>>>
>> Well, unless someone has a reason why not, I suggest we follow the above as the procedure for getting access to the OSGi CT since it seems as reasonable as any.
>>
>> So, go ahead and submit your NDA and I'll send you the CT.
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 1/20/10 7:52, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Shall we move forward on our organizational desire to get out of the NDA business?
>
> When I put the NDA together some years ago, it was based on my view that we as a corporation needed something tangible with which we could demonstrate that we were taking reasonable steps to provide oversight over confidential materials that we licensed and were obligated to keep confidential.
>
> However, the OSGi CT is different - it doesn't require a formal NDA (AIUI).
>
> That said, I do think it's really valuable to have a "Memorandum of Understanding" or "Agreement for Licensed Materials" so that people have to acknowledge to us that such materials aren't open source, or things that can be redistributed at will, but a document without the formal burdens of confidentiality and liability upon the signer.
>
> For example :
>
> 1) That materials provided are licensed by the ASF for the use by and only by ASF projects.
>
> 2) That the recipient will use reasonable care when using such materials (whatever that means).
>
> 3) The recipient understands that they are not to be distributed to or used by 3rd parties.
>
> If nothing else, this gives us a solid leg to stand on in the event a person mishandles the materials....
>
I think this would be fine. So where do we get this "Memorandum of
Understanding" ? Is this something that can happen soonish since sorting
out the OSGi CT process has taken a while?
On a more detailed note, would something like this need to be signed on
a per "understanding" basis or would one cover all such materials
licensed to the Apache?
-> richard
> geir
>
>
>
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>
>> On 1/19/10 10:11 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to confirm the process for gaining access to the OSGi CT.
>>>
>>> An ASF committer can:
>>>
>>> * submit an NDA -- http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
>>> * send a request on jcp-open, presumably with an simple explanation of why they would like access to the CT (e.g. I'm working on the Apache Aries project and would like access to the OSGi CT).
>>>
>>> Is that about right?
>>>
>>>
>> Well, unless someone has a reason why not, I suggest we follow the above as the procedure for getting access to the OSGi CT since it seems as reasonable as any.
>>
>> So, go ahead and submit your NDA and I'll send you the CT.
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by BJ Hargrave <ha...@us.ibm.com>.
The MOU should probably make clear that Apache took on certain obligations
to license the materials and the signer of the MOU is also undertaking
those same obligations as an agent of Apache. These obligations may
include:
- the materials are licensed to Apache for a specific use and may not be
used for other purposes
- the materials are not to be redistributed
- etc.
--
BJ Hargrave
Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
hargrave@us.ibm.com
office: +1 386 848 1781
mobile: +1 386 848 3788
From:
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>
To:
jcp-open@apache.org
Date:
2010/01/20 07:53
Subject:
Re: OSGi CT access
Shall we move forward on our organizational desire to get out of the NDA
business?
When I put the NDA together some years ago, it was based on my view that
we as a corporation needed something tangible with which we could
demonstrate that we were taking reasonable steps to provide oversight over
confidential materials that we licensed and were obligated to keep
confidential.
However, the OSGi CT is different - it doesn't require a formal NDA
(AIUI).
That said, I do think it's really valuable to have a "Memorandum of
Understanding" or "Agreement for Licensed Materials" so that people have
to acknowledge to us that such materials aren't open source, or things
that can be redistributed at will, but a document without the formal
burdens of confidentiality and liability upon the signer.
For example :
1) That materials provided are licensed by the ASF for the use by and only
by ASF projects.
2) That the recipient will use reasonable care when using such materials
(whatever that means).
3) The recipient understands that they are not to be distributed to or
used by 3rd parties.
If nothing else, this gives us a solid leg to stand on in the event a
person mishandles the materials....
geir
On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 1/19/10 10:11 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> I'd like to confirm the process for gaining access to the OSGi CT.
>>
>> An ASF committer can:
>>
>> * submit an NDA -- http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
>> * send a request on jcp-open, presumably with an simple explanation of
why they would like access to the CT (e.g. I'm working on the Apache Aries
project and would like access to the OSGi CT).
>>
>> Is that about right?
>>
>
> Well, unless someone has a reason why not, I suggest we follow the above
as the procedure for getting access to the OSGi CT since it seems as
reasonable as any.
>
> So, go ahead and submit your NDA and I'll send you the CT.
>
> -> richard
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Shall we move forward on our organizational desire to get out of the NDA business?
When I put the NDA together some years ago, it was based on my view that we as a corporation needed something tangible with which we could demonstrate that we were taking reasonable steps to provide oversight over confidential materials that we licensed and were obligated to keep confidential.
However, the OSGi CT is different - it doesn't require a formal NDA (AIUI).
That said, I do think it's really valuable to have a "Memorandum of Understanding" or "Agreement for Licensed Materials" so that people have to acknowledge to us that such materials aren't open source, or things that can be redistributed at will, but a document without the formal burdens of confidentiality and liability upon the signer.
For example :
1) That materials provided are licensed by the ASF for the use by and only by ASF projects.
2) That the recipient will use reasonable care when using such materials (whatever that means).
3) The recipient understands that they are not to be distributed to or used by 3rd parties.
If nothing else, this gives us a solid leg to stand on in the event a person mishandles the materials....
geir
On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 1/19/10 10:11 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> I'd like to confirm the process for gaining access to the OSGi CT.
>>
>> An ASF committer can:
>>
>> * submit an NDA -- http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
>> * send a request on jcp-open, presumably with an simple explanation of why they would like access to the CT (e.g. I'm working on the Apache Aries project and would like access to the OSGi CT).
>>
>> Is that about right?
>>
>
> Well, unless someone has a reason why not, I suggest we follow the above as the procedure for getting access to the OSGi CT since it seems as reasonable as any.
>
> So, go ahead and submit your NDA and I'll send you the CT.
>
> -> richard
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 1/19/10 10:11 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> I'd like to confirm the process for gaining access to the OSGi CT.
>
> An ASF committer can:
>
> * submit an NDA -- http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
> * send a request on jcp-open, presumably with an simple explanation of why they would like access to the CT (e.g. I'm working on the Apache Aries project and would like access to the OSGi CT).
>
> Is that about right?
>
Well, unless someone has a reason why not, I suggest we follow the above
as the procedure for getting access to the OSGi CT since it seems as
reasonable as any.
So, go ahead and submit your NDA and I'll send you the CT.
-> richard
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <ad...@toolazydogs.com>.
Makes sense to me.
Regards,
Alan
On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:44 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I think that this is the right direction - that we should be as open
> with the OSGi CT as we are allowed, and from what I understand, the
> license is fairly open and pragmatic.
>
> We went the route we did for Sun's JCP stuff (lets be clear - our
> BEA TCK license had no nonsense like Sun's tends to...) because we
> had to, not because we wanted to.
>
> geir
>
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/19/10 10:11, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>> I'd like to confirm the process for gaining access to the OSGi CT.
>>>>>
>>>>> An ASF committer can:
>>>>>
>>>>> * submit an NDA -- http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
>>>>> * send a request on jcp-open, presumably with an simple
>>>>> explanation of why they would like access to the CT (e.g. I'm
>>>>> working on the Apache Aries project and would like access to the
>>>>> OSGi CT).
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that about right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For me, this seems reasonable. I was looking to Geir to see if he
>>>> agreed, since he has more experience with this than me.
>>>
>>> For CT work, would we need a separate mailing list?
>>
>> I think we're more protective of our TCK discussions than we need
>> to be, but that's another matter...
>>
>> I believe we are free to discuss the OSGi CT openly. I believe our
>> only restriction is that we cannot redistribute or create
>> derivative works from the CT materials. Richard, Geir (or anyone
>> else) alternative opinions?
>>
>> --kevan
>
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
I think that this is the right direction - that we should be as open with the OSGi CT as we are allowed, and from what I understand, the license is fairly open and pragmatic.
We went the route we did for Sun's JCP stuff (lets be clear - our BEA TCK license had no nonsense like Sun's tends to...) because we had to, not because we wanted to.
geir
On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/19/10 10:11, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>> I'd like to confirm the process for gaining access to the OSGi CT.
>>>>
>>>> An ASF committer can:
>>>>
>>>> * submit an NDA -- http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
>>>> * send a request on jcp-open, presumably with an simple explanation of why they would like access to the CT (e.g. I'm working on the Apache Aries project and would like access to the OSGi CT).
>>>>
>>>> Is that about right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For me, this seems reasonable. I was looking to Geir to see if he agreed, since he has more experience with this than me.
>>
>> For CT work, would we need a separate mailing list?
>
> I think we're more protective of our TCK discussions than we need to be, but that's another matter...
>
> I believe we are free to discuss the OSGi CT openly. I believe our only restriction is that we cannot redistribute or create derivative works from the CT materials. Richard, Geir (or anyone else) alternative opinions?
>
> --kevan
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 1/19/10 14:12, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Nope, it was concern about discussing the OSGi CT openly, something we
> are not allowed to do for JSR TCKs.
There is nothing in the CT license agreement that says we cannot discuss
the CT, as far as I can see.
-> richard
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
# of passes, etc should not be shared as well and probably should be
added to the guidance.
Jeff
On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>>
>> Nope, it was concern about discussing the OSGi CT openly, something
>> we are not allowed to do for JSR TCKs.
>
> That was true some time back. However, here's the latest guidance
> from http://www.apache.org/jcp/
>
> "Traditionally, projects using Apache's TCKs have been very strict
> and closed about what information could be discussed in public
> forums. Over the years, this approach has been gradually relaxed
> by some projects with no adverse affects on the community, the
> general TCK testing process, or the ASF's commitment to protect
> the confidential information entrusted to it.
>
> Therefore, the following should be deemed the guiding policy for
> dealing with TCKs from the ASF :
>
> Projects must keep the official TCK materials confidential. Use
> your best judgement. For the elimination of doubt, public
> discussion about using the TCK, bugs found while using the TCK,
> and any project-created frameworks or assisting software or
> documentation that do not reveal the official confidential TCK
> material is acceptable."
>
> --kevan
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 19, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> Nope, it was concern about discussing the OSGi CT openly, something we are not allowed to do for JSR TCKs.
That was true some time back. However, here's the latest guidance from http://www.apache.org/jcp/
"Traditionally, projects using Apache's TCKs have been very strict
and closed about what information could be discussed in public
forums. Over the years, this approach has been gradually relaxed
by some projects with no adverse affects on the community, the
general TCK testing process, or the ASF's commitment to protect
the confidential information entrusted to it.
Therefore, the following should be deemed the guiding policy for
dealing with TCKs from the ASF :
Projects must keep the official TCK materials confidential. Use
your best judgement. For the elimination of doubt, public
discussion about using the TCK, bugs found while using the TCK,
and any project-created frameworks or assisting software or
documentation that do not reveal the official confidential TCK
material is acceptable."
--kevan
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <ad...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 1/19/10 13:46, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 1/19/10 10:11, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to confirm the process for gaining access to the OSGi CT.
>>>>>
>>>>> An ASF committer can:
>>>>>
>>>>> * submit an NDA -- http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
>>>>> * send a request on jcp-open, presumably with an simple
>>>>> explanation of why they would like access to the CT (e.g. I'm
>>>>> working on the Apache Aries project and would like access to the
>>>>> OSGi CT).
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that about right?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> For me, this seems reasonable. I was looking to Geir to see if he
>>>> agreed, since he has more experience with this than me.
>>>>
>>> For CT work, would we need a separate mailing list?
>>>
>> I think we're more protective of our TCK discussions than we need
>> to be, but that's another matter...
>>
>> I believe we are free to discuss the OSGi CT openly. I believe our
>> only restriction is that we cannot redistribute or create
>> derivative works from the CT materials. Richard, Geir (or anyone
>> else) alternative opinions?
>>
>
> That is correct.
>
> But I assumed Alan's question was in regard to the fact that the
> OSGi CT is not a JCP issue...to me, it seems ok to use this mailing
> list for that too...or to just rename this mailing list to "open-
> standard" or something...it doesn't seem like we need a bunch of
> different lists.
Nope, it was concern about discussing the OSGi CT openly, something we
are not allowed to do for JSR TCKs.
Regards,
Alan
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
I think it would be darn ironic to be discussing OSGi CT openly on the "jcp-open" list :)
geir
On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:52 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 1/19/10 13:46, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 1/19/10 10:11, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to confirm the process for gaining access to the OSGi CT.
>>>>>
>>>>> An ASF committer can:
>>>>>
>>>>> * submit an NDA -- http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
>>>>> * send a request on jcp-open, presumably with an simple explanation of why they would like access to the CT (e.g. I'm working on the Apache Aries project and would like access to the OSGi CT).
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that about right?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> For me, this seems reasonable. I was looking to Geir to see if he agreed, since he has more experience with this than me.
>>>>
>>> For CT work, would we need a separate mailing list?
>>>
>> I think we're more protective of our TCK discussions than we need to be, but that's another matter...
>>
>> I believe we are free to discuss the OSGi CT openly. I believe our only restriction is that we cannot redistribute or create derivative works from the CT materials. Richard, Geir (or anyone else) alternative opinions?
>>
>
> That is correct.
>
> But I assumed Alan's question was in regard to the fact that the OSGi CT is not a JCP issue...to me, it seems ok to use this mailing list for that too...or to just rename this mailing list to "open-standard" or something...it doesn't seem like we need a bunch of different lists.
>
> -> richard
>
>> --kevan
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 1/19/10 13:46, Kevan Miller wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 1/19/10 10:11, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd like to confirm the process for gaining access to the OSGi CT.
>>>>
>>>> An ASF committer can:
>>>>
>>>> * submit an NDA -- http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
>>>> * send a request on jcp-open, presumably with an simple explanation of why they would like access to the CT (e.g. I'm working on the Apache Aries project and would like access to the OSGi CT).
>>>>
>>>> Is that about right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> For me, this seems reasonable. I was looking to Geir to see if he agreed, since he has more experience with this than me.
>>>
>> For CT work, would we need a separate mailing list?
>>
> I think we're more protective of our TCK discussions than we need to be, but that's another matter...
>
> I believe we are free to discuss the OSGi CT openly. I believe our only restriction is that we cannot redistribute or create derivative works from the CT materials. Richard, Geir (or anyone else) alternative opinions?
>
That is correct.
But I assumed Alan's question was in regard to the fact that the OSGi CT
is not a JCP issue...to me, it seems ok to use this mailing list for
that too...or to just rename this mailing list to "open-standard" or
something...it doesn't seem like we need a bunch of different lists.
-> richard
> --kevan
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>> On 1/19/10 10:11, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>> I'd like to confirm the process for gaining access to the OSGi CT.
>>>
>>> An ASF committer can:
>>>
>>> * submit an NDA -- http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
>>> * send a request on jcp-open, presumably with an simple explanation of why they would like access to the CT (e.g. I'm working on the Apache Aries project and would like access to the OSGi CT).
>>>
>>> Is that about right?
>>>
>>
>> For me, this seems reasonable. I was looking to Geir to see if he agreed, since he has more experience with this than me.
>
> For CT work, would we need a separate mailing list?
I think we're more protective of our TCK discussions than we need to be, but that's another matter...
I believe we are free to discuss the OSGi CT openly. I believe our only restriction is that we cannot redistribute or create derivative works from the CT materials. Richard, Geir (or anyone else) alternative opinions?
--kevan
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <ad...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 1/19/10 10:11, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> I'd like to confirm the process for gaining access to the OSGi CT.
>>
>> An ASF committer can:
>>
>> * submit an NDA -- http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
>> * send a request on jcp-open, presumably with an simple explanation
>> of why they would like access to the CT (e.g. I'm working on the
>> Apache Aries project and would like access to the OSGi CT).
>>
>> Is that about right?
>>
>
> For me, this seems reasonable. I was looking to Geir to see if he
> agreed, since he has more experience with this than me.
For CT work, would we need a separate mailing list?
Regards,
Alan
Re: OSGi CT access
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 1/19/10 10:11, Kevan Miller wrote:
> I'd like to confirm the process for gaining access to the OSGi CT.
>
> An ASF committer can:
>
> * submit an NDA -- http://www.apache.org/jcp/ApacheNDA.pdf
> * send a request on jcp-open, presumably with an simple explanation of why they would like access to the CT (e.g. I'm working on the Apache Aries project and would like access to the OSGi CT).
>
> Is that about right?
>
For me, this seems reasonable. I was looking to Geir to see if he
agreed, since he has more experience with this than me.
-> richard