You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by Kevin Sutter <su...@us.ibm.com> on 2009/08/28 15:58:51 UTC
Fw: NOTICE wording in spec
Hi,
I was requested by Donald to forward this note exchange between Linda
DeMichiel (JPA spec lead) and myself (JPA expert group member). I was
trying to get the JPA NOTICES wording loosened up so that we could more
easily create Milestone Releases in our Apache OpenJPA project. It sounds
like her hands are tied. After receiving this reply, I did verify that
the key Java EE 6 specs that are led by Sun do have the same NOTICES
wording. But, those specs led by other organizations do not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter, Java Persistence API (JPA)
mail: sutter@us.ibm.com, Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM
http://webspherepersistence.blogspot.com/
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
http://openjpa.apache.org/
----- Forwarded by Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM on 08/28/2009 08:54 AM -----
From:
Linda DeMichiel <Li...@Sun.COM>
To:
Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
Date:
08/14/2009 12:45 PM
Subject:
Re: NOTICE wording in spec
Sent by:
Linda.Demichiel@Sun.COM
Hi Kevin,
I am bound to this wording and cannot change it.
-Linda
Kevin Sutter wrote:
> Hi Linda,
> Not sure if this needs to be addressed by the whole group or just
> yourself. Feel free to copy the group on the reply, if it's necessary.
>
> Since we're looking for a PFD #2 (Thanks!), I'd like to address the
NOTICE
> wording 2(iii) on page 2 of the spec. It's been causing problems with
> Apache...
>
> Current wording:
>
> (iii)includes the following notice:
> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
under
> the Java Community Process
> (JCP) and is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only.
The
> code is not compatible with
> any specification of the JCP."
>
> The "..is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only." is
> what Apache doesn't like. We've been trying to create interim Milestone
> releases in Apache for OpenJPA along the lines of OpenJPA-2.0.0-M1 or
> OpenJPA-2.0.0-M2. But, any release (even a milestone release) has
certain
> requirements. Apache doesn't differentiate between an alpha, milestone,
> or GA release. A release is a release. And, they don't like to have a
> release labeled as for "test and evaluation purposes only". Makes
Apache
> sound more like a "toy" than for real production. And, I agree that a
> milestone release would not be used for production, but that's what we
> have to deal with.
>
> So, I would like to modify the wording as such:
>
> (iii)includes the following notice:
> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
under
> the Java Community Process
> (JCP). The code is not compatible with any specification of the JCP."
>
> Doable? Or, are you bound to some certain wording? I looked at
> BeanValidation and they don't have any wording along these lines. But,
> maybe that's not a fair comparison... :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
Re: NOTICE wording in spec
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Yep, that's what's in the doc.
geir
On Oct 1, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Aug 28, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
>
>> Excellent! Let us know when we're "clear"... Thanks!
>
> Geir tells me that we're clear. It's my understanding that we need
> to carry the following NOTICE:
>
> This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
> under the Java Community Process (JCP). The code is untested and
> presumed not to be a compatible implementation of the <specification-
> name>. We encourage you to migrate to an implementation of the
> <specification-name> that has been tested and verified to be
> compatible as soon as such an implementation is available, and we
> encourage you to retain this notice in any implementation of
> <specification-name> that you distribute.
>
> --kevan
>
Re: NOTICE wording in spec
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 28, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
> Excellent! Let us know when we're "clear"... Thanks!
Geir tells me that we're clear. It's my understanding that we need to
carry the following NOTICE:
This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
under the Java Community Process (JCP). The code is untested and
presumed not to be a compatible implementation of the <specification-
name>. We encourage you to migrate to an implementation of the
<specification-name> that has been tested and verified to be
compatible as soon as such an implementation is available, and we
encourage you to retain this notice in any implementation of
<specification-name> that you distribute.
--kevan
Re: NOTICE wording in spec
Posted by Kevin Sutter <kw...@apache.org>.
Excellent! Let us know when we're "clear"... Thanks!
Kevin
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> This is a non-issue. We have discussed this with sun separately, and have
> established an agreement (that I have to sign and send back - it was
> approved by ASF legal) that removes such requirements.
>
> I'll post it here once I sign it.
>
> geir
>
>
> On Aug 28, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
>
> Hi,
>> I was requested by Donald to forward this note exchange between Linda
>> DeMichiel (JPA spec lead) and myself (JPA expert group member). I was
>> trying to get the JPA NOTICES wording loosened up so that we could more
>> easily create Milestone Releases in our Apache OpenJPA project. It sounds
>> like her hands are tied. After receiving this reply, I did verify that
>> the key Java EE 6 specs that are led by Sun do have the same NOTICES
>> wording. But, those specs led by other organizations do not.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Kevin Sutter, Java Persistence API (JPA)
>> mail: sutter@us.ibm.com, Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM
>> http://webspherepersistence.blogspot.com/
>> phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
>> http://openjpa.apache.org/
>>
>> ----- Forwarded by Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM on 08/28/2009 08:54 AM -----
>>
>> From:
>> Linda DeMichiel <Li...@Sun.COM>
>> To:
>> Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
>> Date:
>> 08/14/2009 12:45 PM
>> Subject:
>> Re: NOTICE wording in spec
>> Sent by:
>> Linda.Demichiel@Sun.COM
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> I am bound to this wording and cannot change it.
>>
>> -Linda
>>
>>
>> Kevin Sutter wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Linda,
>>> Not sure if this needs to be addressed by the whole group or just
>>> yourself. Feel free to copy the group on the reply, if it's necessary.
>>>
>>> Since we're looking for a PFD #2 (Thanks!), I'd like to address the
>>>
>> NOTICE
>>
>>> wording 2(iii) on page 2 of the spec. It's been causing problems with
>>> Apache...
>>>
>>> Current wording:
>>>
>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
>>>
>> under
>>
>>> the Java Community Process
>>> (JCP) and is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only.
>>>
>> The
>>
>>> code is not compatible with
>>> any specification of the JCP."
>>>
>>> The "..is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only." is
>>> what Apache doesn't like. We've been trying to create interim Milestone
>>>
>>
>> releases in Apache for OpenJPA along the lines of OpenJPA-2.0.0-M1 or
>>> OpenJPA-2.0.0-M2. But, any release (even a milestone release) has
>>>
>> certain
>>
>>> requirements. Apache doesn't differentiate between an alpha, milestone,
>>>
>>
>> or GA release. A release is a release. And, they don't like to have a
>>> release labeled as for "test and evaluation purposes only". Makes
>>>
>> Apache
>>
>>> sound more like a "toy" than for real production. And, I agree that a
>>> milestone release would not be used for production, but that's what we
>>> have to deal with.
>>>
>>> So, I would like to modify the wording as such:
>>>
>>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
>>>
>> under
>>
>>> the Java Community Process
>>> (JCP). The code is not compatible with any specification of the JCP."
>>>
>>> Doable? Or, are you bound to some certain wording? I looked at
>>> BeanValidation and they don't have any wording along these lines. But,
>>> maybe that's not a fair comparison... :-)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: NOTICE wording in spec
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
This is a non-issue. We have discussed this with sun separately, and
have established an agreement (that I have to sign and send back - it
was approved by ASF legal) that removes such requirements.
I'll post it here once I sign it.
geir
On Aug 28, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
> Hi,
> I was requested by Donald to forward this note exchange between Linda
> DeMichiel (JPA spec lead) and myself (JPA expert group member). I was
> trying to get the JPA NOTICES wording loosened up so that we could
> more
> easily create Milestone Releases in our Apache OpenJPA project. It
> sounds
> like her hands are tied. After receiving this reply, I did verify
> that
> the key Java EE 6 specs that are led by Sun do have the same NOTICES
> wording. But, those specs led by other organizations do not.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kevin Sutter, Java Persistence API (JPA)
> mail: sutter@us.ibm.com, Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM
> http://webspherepersistence.blogspot.com/
> phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
> http://openjpa.apache.org/
>
> ----- Forwarded by Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM on 08/28/2009 08:54 AM
> -----
>
> From:
> Linda DeMichiel <Li...@Sun.COM>
> To:
> Kevin Sutter/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
> Date:
> 08/14/2009 12:45 PM
> Subject:
> Re: NOTICE wording in spec
> Sent by:
> Linda.Demichiel@Sun.COM
>
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I am bound to this wording and cannot change it.
>
> -Linda
>
>
> Kevin Sutter wrote:
>> Hi Linda,
>> Not sure if this needs to be addressed by the whole group or just
>> yourself. Feel free to copy the group on the reply, if it's
>> necessary.
>>
>> Since we're looking for a PFD #2 (Thanks!), I'd like to address the
> NOTICE
>> wording 2(iii) on page 2 of the spec. It's been causing problems
>> with
>> Apache...
>>
>> Current wording:
>>
>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
> under
>> the Java Community Process
>> (JCP) and is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only.
> The
>> code is not compatible with
>> any specification of the JCP."
>>
>> The "..is made available for testing and evaluation purposes only."
>> is
>> what Apache doesn't like. We've been trying to create interim
>> Milestone
>
>> releases in Apache for OpenJPA along the lines of OpenJPA-2.0.0-M1 or
>> OpenJPA-2.0.0-M2. But, any release (even a milestone release) has
> certain
>> requirements. Apache doesn't differentiate between an alpha,
>> milestone,
>
>> or GA release. A release is a release. And, they don't like to
>> have a
>> release labeled as for "test and evaluation purposes only". Makes
> Apache
>> sound more like a "toy" than for real production. And, I agree
>> that a
>> milestone release would not be used for production, but that's what
>> we
>> have to deal with.
>>
>> So, I would like to modify the wording as such:
>>
>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed
> under
>> the Java Community Process
>> (JCP). The code is not compatible with any specification of the JCP."
>>
>> Doable? Or, are you bound to some certain wording? I looked at
>> BeanValidation and they don't have any wording along these lines.
>> But,
>> maybe that's not a fair comparison... :-)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>
>