You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2007/07/06 05:45:06 UTC
Food for thought
Just a reminder that we have the following absolute policy since 2002 about
implementing any standards (be they JSR's or any other specification).
So you might want to frame the changes you want in relation to this final
word[1]
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The Apache Software
Foundation will no longer participate in the development of
implementations or interface standards that cannot be completely
implemented and distributed as open source software, without
royalties or fees of any kind, by nonprofit and educational
organizations; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby instructs all
Project Management Committees of the Foundation to review any
and all specifications for which the Foundation's software acts
as a publicly distributed open-source implementation and ensure
that one of the following is true:
a) the Foundation has right and title to all technology necessary
to implement the specification and we have provided a license
to others to implement it under the same or similar terms
as the Apache software license; or
b) the copyright holders have granted an irrevocable, no-charge,
royalty-free license to any nonprofit or educational
organization to implement the specification for the purpose
of distribution to the public, where such license is
sufficiently complete to describe all terms and conditions
applicable to the specification at the time a copy of the
specification is obtained;
[1]
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_03_20.txt
Re: Food for thought
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 7/6/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> Ralph Goers wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks. I was completely unaware of that. I notice that it doesn't say
>> > anything regarding NDAs or TCKs, so I guess that is why it was OK to
>> > participate and approve JSR 270? (I hope this doesn't come across as
>> > snotty or antagonistic. I haven't reviewed the archives of this list
>> yet
>> > so I really have no idea what has come before).
>>
>> JSR 270 would not have been approved with the TCK restrictions.
>>
>> The trouble, as usual, is that licenses are handed to the licensees very
>> late in the game. This is why I supported an Abstain until the actual
>> TCK license is presented on future JSR proposals. We can only vote +1
>> on proposals we know will be open source.
>
> s/we know will be open source/we know will compatible with be open source/
or .../can be implemented as open source/ might be the right wording.
Re: Food for thought
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
On 7/6/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Ralph Goers wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. I was completely unaware of that. I notice that it doesn't say
> > anything regarding NDAs or TCKs, so I guess that is why it was OK to
> > participate and approve JSR 270? (I hope this doesn't come across as
> > snotty or antagonistic. I haven't reviewed the archives of this list yet
> > so I really have no idea what has come before).
>
> JSR 270 would not have been approved with the TCK restrictions.
>
> The trouble, as usual, is that licenses are handed to the licensees very
> late in the game. This is why I supported an Abstain until the actual
> TCK license is presented on future JSR proposals. We can only vote +1
> on proposals we know will be open source.
s/we know will be open source/we know will compatible with be open source/
- Sam Ruby
Re: Food for thought
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/6/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Ralph Goers wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. I was completely unaware of that. I notice that it doesn't say
> > anything regarding NDAs or TCKs, so I guess that is why it was OK to
> > participate and approve JSR 270? (I hope this doesn't come across as
> > snotty or antagonistic. I haven't reviewed the archives of this list yet
> > so I really have no idea what has come before).
>
> JSR 270 would not have been approved with the TCK restrictions.
>
> The trouble, as usual, is that licenses are handed to the licensees very
> late in the game. This is why I supported an Abstain until the actual
> TCK license is presented on future JSR proposals. We can only vote +1
> on proposals we know will be open source.
the current process is flawed WRT to non-profit organisations. to
participate, they need to know up front whether their charter permits
the activity. the most elegant way to achieve this would be for the
specification lead to issue a license for the TCK covering all
qualifying non-profit organisations before the JSR starts.
IMO it is not safe for a non-profit to participate officially in any
JSR which does not have a license issued
- robert
Re: Food for thought
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/7/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 7, 2007, at 12:54 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> > Is the JCP process being re-worked then to hammer out licenses
> > before the hardwork of the JSR is engaged?
>
> Yes, that's one thread. It should be that all participants are aware
> of the business terms before committing resources.
that's good to hear :-)
> > On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >
> >> I doesn't matter.
> >>
> >> They can change the license at will later.
> >>
> >> The solution is to work to change the JCP so that a TCK license
> >> must be offered at final ballot, and must be available at all times.
+1
> >> We're almost there.
> >>
> >> And it's because of general changes in the attitudes of the EC
> >> members, in part because of our constructive and professional
> >> engagement.
that's good news
- robert
Re: Food for thought
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 7, 2007, at 12:54 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Is the JCP process being re-worked then to hammer out licenses
> before the hardwork of the JSR is engaged?
Yes, that's one thread. It should be that all participants are aware
of the business terms before committing resources.
geir
>
>
> On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> I doesn't matter.
>>
>> They can change the license at will later.
>>
>> The solution is to work to change the JCP so that a TCK license
>> must be offered at final ballot, and must be available at all times.
>>
>> We're almost there.
>>
>> And it's because of general changes in the attitudes of the EC
>> members, in part because of our constructive and professional
>> engagement.
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2007, at 4:21 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. I was completely unaware of that. I notice that it
>>>> doesn't say
>>>> anything regarding NDAs or TCKs, so I guess that is why it was
>>>> OK to
>>>> participate and approve JSR 270? (I hope this doesn't come
>>>> across as
>>>> snotty or antagonistic. I haven't reviewed the archives of this
>>>> list yet
>>>> so I really have no idea what has come before).
>>>
>>> JSR 270 would not have been approved with the TCK restrictions.
>>>
>>> The trouble, as usual, is that licenses are handed to the
>>> licensees very
>>> late in the game. This is why I supported an Abstain until the
>>> actual
>>> TCK license is presented on future JSR proposals. We can only
>>> vote +1
>>> on proposals we know will be open source.
>>
>>
>
Re: Food for thought
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Is the JCP process being re-worked then to hammer out licenses before
the hardwork of the JSR is engaged?
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I doesn't matter.
>
> They can change the license at will later.
>
> The solution is to work to change the JCP so that a TCK license
> must be offered at final ballot, and must be available at all times.
>
> We're almost there.
>
> And it's because of general changes in the attitudes of the EC
> members, in part because of our constructive and professional
> engagement.
>
> geir
>
> On Jul 6, 2007, at 4:21 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks. I was completely unaware of that. I notice that it
>>> doesn't say
>>> anything regarding NDAs or TCKs, so I guess that is why it was OK to
>>> participate and approve JSR 270? (I hope this doesn't come across as
>>> snotty or antagonistic. I haven't reviewed the archives of this
>>> list yet
>>> so I really have no idea what has come before).
>>
>> JSR 270 would not have been approved with the TCK restrictions.
>>
>> The trouble, as usual, is that licenses are handed to the
>> licensees very
>> late in the game. This is why I supported an Abstain until the
>> actual
>> TCK license is presented on future JSR proposals. We can only
>> vote +1
>> on proposals we know will be open source.
>
>
Re: Food for thought
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
I doesn't matter.
They can change the license at will later.
The solution is to work to change the JCP so that a TCK license must
be offered at final ballot, and must be available at all times.
We're almost there.
And it's because of general changes in the attitudes of the EC
members, in part because of our constructive and professional
engagement.
geir
On Jul 6, 2007, at 4:21 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. I was completely unaware of that. I notice that it doesn't
>> say
>> anything regarding NDAs or TCKs, so I guess that is why it was OK to
>> participate and approve JSR 270? (I hope this doesn't come across as
>> snotty or antagonistic. I haven't reviewed the archives of this
>> list yet
>> so I really have no idea what has come before).
>
> JSR 270 would not have been approved with the TCK restrictions.
>
> The trouble, as usual, is that licenses are handed to the licensees
> very
> late in the game. This is why I supported an Abstain until the actual
> TCK license is presented on future JSR proposals. We can only vote +1
> on proposals we know will be open source.
Re: Food for thought
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ralph Goers wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> JSR 270 would not have been approved with the TCK restrictions.
>>
>> The trouble, as usual, is that licenses are handed to the licensees very
>> late in the game. This is why I supported an Abstain until the actual
>> TCK license is presented on future JSR proposals. We can only vote +1
>> on proposals we know will be open source.
>>
> OK. Sorry if all the questions are annoying, but why are the licenses
> not available earlier? Why would you not vote No until the license is
> available? That seems more in line with the policy you referenced.
My 2c - +1 we concur, -1 we object.
Until we see a license we don't have an opinion now, do we?
Re: Food for thought
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> JSR 270 would not have been approved with the TCK restrictions.
>
> The trouble, as usual, is that licenses are handed to the licensees very
> late in the game. This is why I supported an Abstain until the actual
> TCK license is presented on future JSR proposals. We can only vote +1
> on proposals we know will be open source.
>
OK. Sorry if all the questions are annoying, but why are the licenses
not available earlier? Why would you not vote No until the license is
available? That seems more in line with the policy you referenced.
Ralph
Re: Food for thought
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Thanks. I was completely unaware of that. I notice that it doesn't say
> anything regarding NDAs or TCKs, so I guess that is why it was OK to
> participate and approve JSR 270? (I hope this doesn't come across as
> snotty or antagonistic. I haven't reviewed the archives of this list yet
> so I really have no idea what has come before).
JSR 270 would not have been approved with the TCK restrictions.
The trouble, as usual, is that licenses are handed to the licensees very
late in the game. This is why I supported an Abstain until the actual
TCK license is presented on future JSR proposals. We can only vote +1
on proposals we know will be open source.
Re: Food for thought
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Just a reminder that we have the following absolute policy since 2002 about
> implementing any standards (be they JSR's or any other specification).
>
> So you might want to frame the changes you want in relation to this final
> word[1]
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The Apache Software
> Foundation will no longer participate in the development of
> implementations or interface standards that cannot be completely
> implemented and distributed as open source software, without
> royalties or fees of any kind, by nonprofit and educational
> organizations; and be it further
>
> RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby instructs all
> Project Management Committees of the Foundation to review any
> and all specifications for which the Foundation's software acts
> as a publicly distributed open-source implementation and ensure
> that one of the following is true:
>
> a) the Foundation has right and title to all technology necessary
> to implement the specification and we have provided a license
> to others to implement it under the same or similar terms
> as the Apache software license; or
>
> b) the copyright holders have granted an irrevocable, no-charge,
> royalty-free license to any nonprofit or educational
> organization to implement the specification for the purpose
> of distribution to the public, where such license is
> sufficiently complete to describe all terms and conditions
> applicable to the specification at the time a copy of the
> specification is obtained;
>
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_03_20.txt
>
Thanks. I was completely unaware of that. I notice that it doesn't say
anything regarding NDAs or TCKs, so I guess that is why it was OK to
participate and approve JSR 270? (I hope this doesn't come across as
snotty or antagonistic. I haven't reviewed the archives of this list yet
so I really have no idea what has come before).
Ralph