You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> on 2007/08/14 02:43:30 UTC
Upcoming JCP EC Meeting
The ASF will be asking the EC of the JCP to vote on the a non-binding
motion that will be the same as or substantially similar to the
following :
It is the position of the JCP Executive Committees that TCK licenses
must not be used to discriminate against or restrict compatible
implementations
of Java specifications. Licenses containing such limitations do
not meet the
requirements of the JSPA, the agreement under which the JCP
operates, and violate
the expectations of the Java community that JCP specs can be
openly implemented.
The intent is not a legal judgement by the members of the EC, but a
statement of support for java as an open spec ecosystem.
geir
Re: Upcoming JCP EC Meeting
Posted by Wade Chandler <hw...@yahoo.com>.
I think it is good. It will at least solicit an
opinion from the EC as to what the interpretation is
from them. It should test the process as well. I think
the JSPA and the JCP processes are pretty clear, but
we'll see what happens with this as it certainly
requests the EC to give an opinion as to what their
understanding is.
Wade
--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:25 AM, Davanum Srinivas
> wrote:
>
> > "EC's understanding of the requirements of the
> JSPA" <== Is JSPA
> > ambiguous? can there be two or more ways to
> interpret what's in the
> > JSPA?
>
> There clearly are at least two ways, or we wouldn't
> be having this
> argument with Sun.
>
> Note that this fragment is to be understood in the
> context of the
> *rest* of the same sentence :)
>
> geir
>
> >
> > On 8/14/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
> >> Clarification :
> >>
> >> It is the position of the JCP Executive
> Committees that TCK
> >> licenses
> >> must not be used to discriminate against or
> restrict compatible
> >> implementations
> >> of Java specifications. Licenses containing
> such limitations do
> >> not meet the
> >> EC's understanding of the requirements of the
> JSPA, the agreement
> >> under which the
> >> JCP operates, and violate the expectations of
> the Java community
> >> that JCP specs
> >> can be openly implemented.
> >>
> >> On Aug 13, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr.
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The ASF will be asking the EC of the JCP to vote
> on the a non-
> >>> binding motion that will be the same as or
> substantially similar to
> >>> the following :
> >>>
> >>> It is the position of the JCP Executive
> Committees that TCK
> >>> licenses
> >>> must not be used to discriminate against or
> restrict compatible
> >>> implementations
> >>> of Java specifications. Licenses containing
> such limitations do
> >>> not meet the
> >>> requirements of the JSPA, the agreement under
> which the JCP
> >>> operates, and violate
> >>> the expectations of the Java community that
> JCP specs can be
> >>> openly implemented.
> >>>
> >>> The intent is not a legal judgement by the
> members of the EC, but a
> >>> statement of support for java as an open spec
> ecosystem.
> >>>
> >>> geir
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
>
>
Re: Upcoming JCP EC Meeting
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:25 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> "EC's understanding of the requirements of the JSPA" <== Is JSPA
> ambiguous? can there be two or more ways to interpret what's in the
> JSPA?
There clearly are at least two ways, or we wouldn't be having this
argument with Sun.
Note that this fragment is to be understood in the context of the
*rest* of the same sentence :)
geir
>
> On 8/14/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Clarification :
>>
>> It is the position of the JCP Executive Committees that TCK
>> licenses
>> must not be used to discriminate against or restrict compatible
>> implementations
>> of Java specifications. Licenses containing such limitations do
>> not meet the
>> EC's understanding of the requirements of the JSPA, the agreement
>> under which the
>> JCP operates, and violate the expectations of the Java community
>> that JCP specs
>> can be openly implemented.
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> The ASF will be asking the EC of the JCP to vote on the a non-
>>> binding motion that will be the same as or substantially similar to
>>> the following :
>>>
>>> It is the position of the JCP Executive Committees that TCK
>>> licenses
>>> must not be used to discriminate against or restrict compatible
>>> implementations
>>> of Java specifications. Licenses containing such limitations do
>>> not meet the
>>> requirements of the JSPA, the agreement under which the JCP
>>> operates, and violate
>>> the expectations of the Java community that JCP specs can be
>>> openly implemented.
>>>
>>> The intent is not a legal judgement by the members of the EC, but a
>>> statement of support for java as an open spec ecosystem.
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: Upcoming JCP EC Meeting
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 8/16/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2007, at 9:50 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> >
> > On Aug 15, 2007, at 4:12 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> "EC's understanding of the requirements of the JSPA" <== Is JSPA
> >>> ambiguous? can there be two or more ways to interpret what's in the
> >>> JSPA?
> >>
> >> it's a contract. until the courts settle the terms, it's definitely
> >> subject to interpretation.
> >>
> >> the JCP needs an arbitration system so that disputes over
> >> interpretation of the terms can be settled
> >
> > It does seem strange that the only recourse in case of a dispute
> > among members of the JCP is to go to court.
i prefer to think of it as a bug in the current iteration of the JCP
> That is one thing that this dispute shows, since the JCP is just a
> set of contracts with Sun. The only relationship between any other
> member combination is *through* Sun. While a set of rules or
> contract terms in which the parties agree to arbitration for some
> class of disputes could be engineered into the JSPA, that part of the
> JSPA could be just as easily ignored as, say, section 5.B.
if an equitable dispute resolution mechanism outside the court system
is required then alterations to the current structure of the JCP would
be needed. rather than sun being forced to act as both player and
umpire, the JCP would need to be restructured to allow an independent
umpire to be established.
- robert
Re: Upcoming JCP EC Meeting
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 15, 2007, at 9:50 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2007, at 4:12 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
>> On 8/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "EC's understanding of the requirements of the JSPA" <== Is JSPA
>>> ambiguous? can there be two or more ways to interpret what's in the
>>> JSPA?
>>
>> it's a contract. until the courts settle the terms, it's definitely
>> subject to interpretation.
>>
>> the JCP needs an arbitration system so that disputes over
>> interpretation of the terms can be settled
>
> It does seem strange that the only recourse in case of a dispute
> among members of the JCP is to go to court.
That is one thing that this dispute shows, since the JCP is just a
set of contracts with Sun. The only relationship between any other
member combination is *through* Sun. While a set of rules or
contract terms in which the parties agree to arbitration for some
class of disputes could be engineered into the JSPA, that part of the
JSPA could be just as easily ignored as, say, section 5.B.
geir
Re: Upcoming JCP EC Meeting
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Aug 15, 2007, at 4:12 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On 8/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "EC's understanding of the requirements of the JSPA" <== Is JSPA
>> ambiguous? can there be two or more ways to interpret what's in the
>> JSPA?
>
> it's a contract. until the courts settle the terms, it's definitely
> subject to interpretation.
>
> the JCP needs an arbitration system so that disputes over
> interpretation of the terms can be settled
It does seem strange that the only recourse in case of a dispute
among members of the JCP is to go to court.
Craig
>
> - robert
Craig Russell
DB PMC, OpenJPA PMC
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
Re: Upcoming JCP EC Meeting
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 8/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "EC's understanding of the requirements of the JSPA" <== Is JSPA
> ambiguous? can there be two or more ways to interpret what's in the
> JSPA?
it's a contract. until the courts settle the terms, it's definitely
subject to interpretation.
the JCP needs an arbitration system so that disputes over
interpretation of the terms can be settled
- robert
Re: Upcoming JCP EC Meeting
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
"EC's understanding of the requirements of the JSPA" <== Is JSPA
ambiguous? can there be two or more ways to interpret what's in the
JSPA?
On 8/14/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Clarification :
>
> It is the position of the JCP Executive Committees that TCK licenses
> must not be used to discriminate against or restrict compatible
> implementations
> of Java specifications. Licenses containing such limitations do
> not meet the
> EC's understanding of the requirements of the JSPA, the agreement
> under which the
> JCP operates, and violate the expectations of the Java community
> that JCP specs
> can be openly implemented.
>
> On Aug 13, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> > The ASF will be asking the EC of the JCP to vote on the a non-
> > binding motion that will be the same as or substantially similar to
> > the following :
> >
> > It is the position of the JCP Executive Committees that TCK licenses
> > must not be used to discriminate against or restrict compatible
> > implementations
> > of Java specifications. Licenses containing such limitations do
> > not meet the
> > requirements of the JSPA, the agreement under which the JCP
> > operates, and violate
> > the expectations of the Java community that JCP specs can be
> > openly implemented.
> >
> > The intent is not a legal judgement by the members of the EC, but a
> > statement of support for java as an open spec ecosystem.
> >
> > geir
> >
> >
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: Upcoming JCP EC Meeting
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Clarification :
It is the position of the JCP Executive Committees that TCK licenses
must not be used to discriminate against or restrict compatible
implementations
of Java specifications. Licenses containing such limitations do
not meet the
EC's understanding of the requirements of the JSPA, the agreement
under which the
JCP operates, and violate the expectations of the Java community
that JCP specs
can be openly implemented.
On Aug 13, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> The ASF will be asking the EC of the JCP to vote on the a non-
> binding motion that will be the same as or substantially similar to
> the following :
>
> It is the position of the JCP Executive Committees that TCK licenses
> must not be used to discriminate against or restrict compatible
> implementations
> of Java specifications. Licenses containing such limitations do
> not meet the
> requirements of the JSPA, the agreement under which the JCP
> operates, and violate
> the expectations of the Java community that JCP specs can be
> openly implemented.
>
> The intent is not a legal judgement by the members of the EC, but a
> statement of support for java as an open spec ecosystem.
>
> geir
>
>
Re: Upcoming JCP EC Meeting
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 8/14/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> The ASF will be asking the EC of the JCP to vote on the a non-binding
> motion that will be the same as or substantially similar to the
> following :
>
> It is the position of the JCP Executive Committees that TCK licenses
> must not be used to discriminate against or restrict compatible
> implementations
> of Java specifications.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is the ambiguity intentional?
(specifications about Java | specifications implemented in Java)
- robert