You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> on 2007/05/13 05:26:37 UTC
Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Folks,
Have we heard from Sun officially on our Open Letter for access to the
TCK for Harmony? Is it time to figure out the next steps on how to
deal with Sun's reluctance to keep it's agreements?
Thanks,
dims
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Justin Erenkrantz" <ju...@erenkrantz.com> writes:
> On 5/13/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
>> Ah good then- here's some from the meeting minutes:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/board_minutes_2006_10_25.txt
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/board_minutes_2006_12_20.txt
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2007/board_minutes_2007_01_17.txt
>
> Do expect another round of minutes to be approved at this week's Board
> meeting. -- justin
And here they are:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2007/board_minutes_2007_02_21.txt
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2007/board_minutes_2007_03_28.txt
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2007/board_minutes_2007_04_25.txt
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 5/13/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
> Ah good then- here's some from the meeting minutes:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/board_minutes_2006_10_25.txt
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/board_minutes_2006_12_20.txt
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2007/board_minutes_2007_01_17.txt
Do expect another round of minutes to be approved at this week's Board
meeting. -- justin
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On May 13, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> On May 13, 2007, at 3:33 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>>> "Davanum Srinivas" <da...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Have we heard from Sun officially on our Open Letter for access
>>>> to the
>>>> TCK for Harmony?
>>>
>>> AIUI our self-imposed deadline has passed, and negotiations to
>>> this point have failed. It's too bad that there's absolutely
>>> no public record of those negotiations here or anywhere else,
>>> so we'll have to start the discussion from scratch.
>>
>> Not really.
>
> Ah good then- here's some from the meeting minutes:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/
> board_minutes_2006_10_25.txt
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/
> board_minutes_2006_12_20.txt
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2007/
> board_minutes_2007_01_17.txt
>
>>>
>>>> Is it time to figure out the next steps on how to deal with Sun's
>>>> reluctance to keep it's agreements?
>>>
>>> Yes, but we're still waiting for our VP of the JCP to sort out his
>>> dissonance and provide a summary report.
>>
>> What dissonance?
>
> You mentioned privately that you didn't want to "push things off a
> cliff". I assume by that you meant opening this discussion here on
> the issues surrounding Harmony and the TCK.
Er, no. But since I don't remember which private message the above
is from, I'll have to go back to figure out the context.
geir
>
> --
> Joe Schaefer
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On May 14, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 5/13/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've also reviewed the resources for spec leads available at
>>
>> http://jcp.org/en/resources/guide
>>
>> and the template licenses are chock-full of Field-of-Use provisions.
>> How does one know which JSR's can be safely implemented in open
>> source?
>
> I think the answer there should be 'one asks Apache'. We need to
> publish our definition of openness for JSRs - the JCP page pretty much
> has that, but we're either adding the no-FOU or no-Veto to that. Then
> we need to list the JSRs that can be considered open.
If we do that, then we are conceding that a FOU is technically legal,
and we are simply stating a preference.
Our position should be that FOUs that restrict downstream uses of
tested code are *not* permitted.
Period.
Sun still has a veto for changes made to SE, ME and EE. I actually
don't care - they claim it's not an issue. If it does become an
issue, the veto mechanism itself will be the least of our problems, I
think.
geir
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On 5/14/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
> "Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org> writes:
>
> > On 5/13/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've also reviewed the resources for spec leads available at
> >>
> >> http://jcp.org/en/resources/guide
> >>
> >> and the template licenses are chock-full of Field-of-Use provisions.
> >> How does one know which JSR's can be safely implemented in open
> >> source?
> >
> > I think the answer there should be 'one asks Apache'. We need to
> > publish our definition of openness for JSRs - the JCP page pretty much
> > has that, but we're either adding the no-FOU or no-Veto to that. Then
> > we need to list the JSRs that can be considered open.
>
> But how do we go about constructing such a list if the terms
> of the spec are not available to the general public?
Simple. We color those squares red.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org> writes:
> On May 14, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
[...]
>> The problem is that we actually voted no on JSR 99:
>>
>> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?j=99&t=7&c=1
>
> Read it carefully. That's just the community draft. We said no, people agreed
> with us, we still got out voted.
>
> But didn't matter - we made a point. See what happened at the end, in the
> final approval vote :
>
> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=1379
>
>>
>> What I'm looking for are explicit terms in the contract which
>> proscribe Sun's FOU restrictions.
>
> You're not going to find
>
> "spec lead isn't allowed to have FOU restrictions"
>
> anywhere. However, I think we do a good job in the openletter of
> pointing out how such a thing isn't allowed
>
> http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html
>
> Have you read that?
I have. With that, I think the jcp-open@
archives are now up-to-date.
--
Joe Schaefer - chief agitator
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On May 14, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org> writes:
>
>> On 5/14/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
>>> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Again, I think that we'd be better served sticking to our guns
>>>> here -
>>>> that the JCP is open because of the changes pushed through by
>>>> the ASF
>>>> in 2002.
>>>
>>> Could I get a Chapter and Verse or full-quote of the text in the
>>> JSPA
>>> we are basing that opinion on? I have read
>>>
>>> http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/announce/
>>> LetterofIntent.html
>>>
>>> but I haven't been able to figure out how this was codified
>>> in the JSPA we signed.
>>
>> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-agreement.html is what I know of.
>
> The problem is that we actually voted no on JSR 99:
>
> http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?j=99&t=7&c=1
Read it carefully. That's just the community draft. We said no,
people agreed with us, we still got out voted.
But didn't matter - we made a point. See what happened at the end,
in the final approval vote :
http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=1379
>
> What I'm looking for are explicit terms in the contract which
> proscribe Sun's FOU restrictions.
You're not going to find
"spec lead isn't allowed to have FOU restrictions"
anywhere. However, I think we do a good job in the openletter of
pointing out how such a thing isn't allowed
http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html
Have you read that?
geir
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org> writes:
> On 5/14/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
>> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org> writes:
>>
>> > Again, I think that we'd be better served sticking to our guns here -
>> > that the JCP is open because of the changes pushed through by the ASF
>> > in 2002.
>>
>> Could I get a Chapter and Verse or full-quote of the text in the JSPA
>> we are basing that opinion on? I have read
>>
>> http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/announce/LetterofIntent.html
>>
>> but I haven't been able to figure out how this was codified
>> in the JSPA we signed.
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-agreement.html is what I know of.
The problem is that we actually voted no on JSR 99:
http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?j=99&t=7&c=1
What I'm looking for are explicit terms in the contract which
proscribe Sun's FOU restrictions.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On 5/14/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org> writes:
>
> > Again, I think that we'd be better served sticking to our guns here -
> > that the JCP is open because of the changes pushed through by the ASF
> > in 2002.
>
> Could I get a Chapter and Verse or full-quote of the text in the JSPA
> we are basing that opinion on? I have read
>
> http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/announce/LetterofIntent.html
>
> but I haven't been able to figure out how this was codified
> in the JSPA we signed.
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-agreement.html is what I know of.
Hen
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org> writes:
> Again, I think that we'd be better served sticking to our guns here -
> that the JCP is open because of the changes pushed through by the ASF
> in 2002.
Could I get a Chapter and Verse or full-quote of the text in the JSPA
we are basing that opinion on? I have read
http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/announce/LetterofIntent.html
but I haven't been able to figure out how this was codified
in the JSPA we signed.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On May 14, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org> writes:
>
>> On 5/13/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've also reviewed the resources for spec leads available at
>>>
>>> http://jcp.org/en/resources/guide
>>>
>>> and the template licenses are chock-full of Field-of-Use provisions.
>>> How does one know which JSR's can be safely implemented in open
>>> source?
>>
>> I think the answer there should be 'one asks Apache'. We need to
>> publish our definition of openness for JSRs - the JCP page pretty
>> much
>> has that, but we're either adding the no-FOU or no-Veto to that. Then
>> we need to list the JSRs that can be considered open.
>
> But how do we go about constructing such a list if the terms
> of the spec are not available to the general public? Furthermore,
> we can't simply base it on the fact that we have been able to
> successfully negotiate open-source compatible terms in the past,
> assuming the spec lead may offer different terms to different
> implementors on a case-by-case basis.
I actually have no problem with the fact that the spec lead can offer
different terms to different people. What we must have is a publicly
known set of terms delivered at final review, which remains publicly
posted. This is an element in the JCP that's missing, and something
that several of us have been pushing for in the current JCP process JSR.
>
> I think the policy should be trust-but-verify, so the public
> has an opportunity to catch any mistakes we may have made in
> our assessment of the openness of any particular JSR.
Again, I think that we'd be better served sticking to our guns here -
that the JCP is open because of the changes pushed through by the ASF
in 2002. Augment that with forcing the requirement that a "minimum
TCK license" be made and kept publicly available, and I think we're
in great shape.
geir
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org> writes:
> On 5/13/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've also reviewed the resources for spec leads available at
>>
>> http://jcp.org/en/resources/guide
>>
>> and the template licenses are chock-full of Field-of-Use provisions.
>> How does one know which JSR's can be safely implemented in open
>> source?
>
> I think the answer there should be 'one asks Apache'. We need to
> publish our definition of openness for JSRs - the JCP page pretty much
> has that, but we're either adding the no-FOU or no-Veto to that. Then
> we need to list the JSRs that can be considered open.
But how do we go about constructing such a list if the terms
of the spec are not available to the general public? Furthermore,
we can't simply base it on the fact that we have been able to
successfully negotiate open-source compatible terms in the past,
assuming the spec lead may offer different terms to different
implementors on a case-by-case basis.
I think the policy should be trust-but-verify, so the public
has an opportunity to catch any mistakes we may have made in
our assessment of the openness of any particular JSR.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On 5/13/07, Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> wrote:
>
> I've also reviewed the resources for spec leads available at
>
> http://jcp.org/en/resources/guide
>
> and the template licenses are chock-full of Field-of-Use provisions.
> How does one know which JSR's can be safely implemented in open
> source?
I think the answer there should be 'one asks Apache'. We need to
publish our definition of openness for JSRs - the JCP page pretty much
has that, but we're either adding the no-FOU or no-Veto to that. Then
we need to list the JSRs that can be considered open.
Hen
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On May 22, 2007, at 11:27 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On May 22, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> On May 22, 2007, at 6:02 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>> On May 14, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> For me, the core problem is that Sun is violating the terms of
>>>> the JSPA. It's my belief that we need to treat Sun with that in
>>>> mind going forward, as we would treat any participant in the JCP
>>>> that is in violation of the rules. True, the structure of the
>>>> JCP is that in which Sun is is the common countersigner to the
>>>> JSPA, but we shouldn't "beatify" their position in the
>>>> ecosystem. Sure, they invented Java, and all things considered,
>>>> have done a decent job of stewardship. However, the fundamental
>>>> premise behind the JCP is that it's a community process, and I
>>>> think we should seriously test this assertion and decide what to
>>>> do once we know.
>>>
>>> Is there any recourse in the JCP process to censure Sun or remove
>>> Sun from the JCP since they are (in our opinion) violating the
>>> agreements that form the foundation of the JCP itself?
>>>
>>
>> Structurally? No. Sun runs the Program Management Organization
>> (the "PMO") and the legal structure of the JCP is a hub-and-spoke
>> web of contracts (the JSPA) between Sun and every member. Short
>> of suing them, which isn't something we're planning, the only
>> thing we can do is apply pressure via the community and our EC
>> voting, which will both do.
>
> Boy, that doesn't seem like a fair structure. Oh well, not a whole
> lot we can do about that now.
No, but life is a series of changes. This can't last forever.
After all, there are options.
geir
>
> -dain
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On May 22, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On May 22, 2007, at 6:02 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> On May 14, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> For me, the core problem is that Sun is violating the terms of
>>> the JSPA. It's my belief that we need to treat Sun with that in
>>> mind going forward, as we would treat any participant in the JCP
>>> that is in violation of the rules. True, the structure of the
>>> JCP is that in which Sun is is the common countersigner to the
>>> JSPA, but we shouldn't "beatify" their position in the
>>> ecosystem. Sure, they invented Java, and all things considered,
>>> have done a decent job of stewardship. However, the fundamental
>>> premise behind the JCP is that it's a community process, and I
>>> think we should seriously test this assertion and decide what to
>>> do once we know.
>>
>> Is there any recourse in the JCP process to censure Sun or remove
>> Sun from the JCP since they are (in our opinion) violating the
>> agreements that form the foundation of the JCP itself?
>>
>
> Structurally? No. Sun runs the Program Management Organization
> (the "PMO") and the legal structure of the JCP is a hub-and-spoke
> web of contracts (the JSPA) between Sun and every member. Short of
> suing them, which isn't something we're planning, the only thing we
> can do is apply pressure via the community and our EC voting, which
> will both do.
Boy, that doesn't seem like a fair structure. Oh well, not a whole
lot we can do about that now.
-dain
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On May 22, 2007, at 6:02 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On May 14, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> For me, the core problem is that Sun is violating the terms of the
>> JSPA. It's my belief that we need to treat Sun with that in mind
>> going forward, as we would treat any participant in the JCP that
>> is in violation of the rules. True, the structure of the JCP is
>> that in which Sun is is the common countersigner to the JSPA, but
>> we shouldn't "beatify" their position in the ecosystem. Sure,
>> they invented Java, and all things considered, have done a decent
>> job of stewardship. However, the fundamental premise behind the
>> JCP is that it's a community process, and I think we should
>> seriously test this assertion and decide what to do once we know.
>
> Is there any recourse in the JCP process to censure Sun or remove
> Sun from the JCP since they are (in our opinion) violating the
> agreements that form the foundation of the JCP itself?
>
Structurally? No. Sun runs the Program Management Organization (the
"PMO") and the legal structure of the JCP is a hub-and-spoke web of
contracts (the JSPA) between Sun and every member. Short of suing
them, which isn't something we're planning, the only thing we can do
is apply pressure via the community and our EC voting, which will
both do.
geir
> -dain
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On May 14, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> For me, the core problem is that Sun is violating the terms of the
> JSPA. It's my belief that we need to treat Sun with that in mind
> going forward, as we would treat any participant in the JCP that is
> in violation of the rules. True, the structure of the JCP is that
> in which Sun is is the common countersigner to the JSPA, but we
> shouldn't "beatify" their position in the ecosystem. Sure, they
> invented Java, and all things considered, have done a decent job of
> stewardship. However, the fundamental premise behind the JCP is
> that it's a community process, and I think we should seriously test
> this assertion and decide what to do once we know.
Is there any recourse in the JCP process to censure Sun or remove Sun
from the JCP since they are (in our opinion) violating the agreements
that form the foundation of the JCP itself?
-dain
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
"but it's been perfectly fine for us until now"...I disagree. From the
day i wanted a TCK for JAXRPC. It's been nothing but a headache!. Who
gets to know what and when, who has access, what can i share, how can
i get help from someone who has not signed the NDA, Getting to know
who has signed the NDA...All this in a public open source project.
it's just not right. But anyway, I digress.....All these have nothing
to do with Sun's reluctance to keep its current agreements. If we do
sign anything else with them in the future, all these
non-open-sourcey-corporate-stuff has to go!
thanks,
dims
On 5/14/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On May 13, 2007, at 10:04 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> Realistically, I'm not too surprised given that it was in their
> >> best interest
> >> to not throw gasoline on this fire before or during their biggest
> >> conference,
> >> JavaOne. Sure, I would have preferred the courtesy of a reply, but
> >> considering the source, I'm not surprised. Maybe we'll get one
> >> this week
> >> (probably not - Sun recovers from it's J1 hangover the week after
> >> the
> >> conference), or maybe not. In some ways, it doesn't matter. We
> >> understand
> >> the whole equation (including Sun's motivations behind their
> >> breach of
> >> contract) and we believe that our position is the correct one,
> >> both in the
> >> letter and the spirit of the law. To that, I'll note that Sun
> >> has yet to
> >> actually dispute this.
> >
> > What I don't quite yet understand is why the terms of the TCK were not
> > disclosed when we first announced our intentions to implement JSR-176.
>
> Because we understand the JSPA and after N TCK licenses (I forget
> what N is) I never suspected this would happen. As a matter of fact,
> the first draft of the TCK license we received was just fine - it was
> like every other TCK license we received. THe only thing it was
> missing was the "list price" for the JCK in the event that the ASF
> converted to a for-profit entity. :/
>
> At the time, I suggested that they put any number they wanted (I
> suggested $1B) given the likelihood of the ASF being a for-profit.
> But someone wanted to be a sticker for process, and my assessment is
> that once the sales people caught wind of this, that's when this
> problem started.
>
> > 95% complete is too late in the game to find out the spec cannot be
> > implemented in open source. AIUI the EC has to be notified of
> > all the business terms of a spec prior to ratification. Was this
> > a simple oversight?
>
> I don't think so. I believe that there is no requirement for full
> TCK terms at ratification, and the spec lead can change them at
> will. That's one of the things we've changed in our voting - we will
> vote no on any spec that doesn't give TCK terms to us for final review.
>
> Remember, a FOU *isn't allowed*. If we had to worry about every
> term, there would be a laundry list of things we'd have to ask for
> assurance won't be done. The JSPA establishes a framework in which
> we work. Either the "rule of law" stands, or we're in some kind of
> Mad Max standards body.
>
> For me, the core problem is that Sun is violating the terms of the
> JSPA. It's my belief that we need to treat Sun with that in mind
> going forward, as we would treat any participant in the JCP that is
> in violation of the rules. True, the structure of the JCP is that in
> which Sun is is the common countersigner to the JSPA, but we
> shouldn't "beatify" their position in the ecosystem. Sure, they
> invented Java, and all things considered, have done a decent job of
> stewardship. However, the fundamental premise behind the JCP is that
> it's a community process, and I think we should seriously test this
> assertion and decide what to do once we know.
>
> >
> > I've also reviewed the resources for spec leads available at
> >
> > http://jcp.org/en/resources/guide
> >
> > and the template licenses are chock-full of Field-of-Use provisions.
> > How does one know which JSR's can be safely implemented in open
> > source?
>
> Our position is that *every* JSR can be safely implemented in open
> source. That's based on the work we did 5-ish years ago.
>
> The problem isn't that the JCP is fundamentally flawed - sure, it's
> not perfect, but it's been perfectly fine for us until now. This
> incident is - IMO - that of a community member attempting to game the
> system in a way incompatible with the letter and spirit of "the
> law". I believe this is the position we should take, and see if the
> JCP is capable of self-governance.
>
> geir
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On May 13, 2007, at 10:04 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> Realistically, I'm not too surprised given that it was in their
>> best interest
>> to not throw gasoline on this fire before or during their biggest
>> conference,
>> JavaOne. Sure, I would have preferred the courtesy of a reply, but
>> considering the source, I'm not surprised. Maybe we'll get one
>> this week
>> (probably not - Sun recovers from it's J1 hangover the week after
>> the
>> conference), or maybe not. In some ways, it doesn't matter. We
>> understand
>> the whole equation (including Sun's motivations behind their
>> breach of
>> contract) and we believe that our position is the correct one,
>> both in the
>> letter and the spirit of the law. To that, I'll note that Sun
>> has yet to
>> actually dispute this.
>
> What I don't quite yet understand is why the terms of the TCK were not
> disclosed when we first announced our intentions to implement JSR-176.
Because we understand the JSPA and after N TCK licenses (I forget
what N is) I never suspected this would happen. As a matter of fact,
the first draft of the TCK license we received was just fine - it was
like every other TCK license we received. THe only thing it was
missing was the "list price" for the JCK in the event that the ASF
converted to a for-profit entity. :/
At the time, I suggested that they put any number they wanted (I
suggested $1B) given the likelihood of the ASF being a for-profit.
But someone wanted to be a sticker for process, and my assessment is
that once the sales people caught wind of this, that's when this
problem started.
> 95% complete is too late in the game to find out the spec cannot be
> implemented in open source. AIUI the EC has to be notified of
> all the business terms of a spec prior to ratification. Was this
> a simple oversight?
I don't think so. I believe that there is no requirement for full
TCK terms at ratification, and the spec lead can change them at
will. That's one of the things we've changed in our voting - we will
vote no on any spec that doesn't give TCK terms to us for final review.
Remember, a FOU *isn't allowed*. If we had to worry about every
term, there would be a laundry list of things we'd have to ask for
assurance won't be done. The JSPA establishes a framework in which
we work. Either the "rule of law" stands, or we're in some kind of
Mad Max standards body.
For me, the core problem is that Sun is violating the terms of the
JSPA. It's my belief that we need to treat Sun with that in mind
going forward, as we would treat any participant in the JCP that is
in violation of the rules. True, the structure of the JCP is that in
which Sun is is the common countersigner to the JSPA, but we
shouldn't "beatify" their position in the ecosystem. Sure, they
invented Java, and all things considered, have done a decent job of
stewardship. However, the fundamental premise behind the JCP is that
it's a community process, and I think we should seriously test this
assertion and decide what to do once we know.
>
> I've also reviewed the resources for spec leads available at
>
> http://jcp.org/en/resources/guide
>
> and the template licenses are chock-full of Field-of-Use provisions.
> How does one know which JSR's can be safely implemented in open
> source?
Our position is that *every* JSR can be safely implemented in open
source. That's based on the work we did 5-ish years ago.
The problem isn't that the JCP is fundamentally flawed - sure, it's
not perfect, but it's been perfectly fine for us until now. This
incident is - IMO - that of a community member attempting to game the
system in a way incompatible with the letter and spirit of "the
law". I believe this is the position we should take, and see if the
JCP is capable of self-governance.
geir
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
[...]
> Realistically, I'm not too surprised given that it was in their best interest
> to not throw gasoline on this fire before or during their biggest conference,
> JavaOne. Sure, I would have preferred the courtesy of a reply, but
> considering the source, I'm not surprised. Maybe we'll get one this week
> (probably not - Sun recovers from it's J1 hangover the week after the
> conference), or maybe not. In some ways, it doesn't matter. We understand
> the whole equation (including Sun's motivations behind their breach of
> contract) and we believe that our position is the correct one, both in the
> letter and the spirit of the law. To that, I'll note that Sun has yet to
> actually dispute this.
What I don't quite yet understand is why the terms of the TCK were not
disclosed when we first announced our intentions to implement JSR-176.
95% complete is too late in the game to find out the spec cannot be
implemented in open source. AIUI the EC has to be notified of
all the business terms of a spec prior to ratification. Was this
a simple oversight?
I've also reviewed the resources for spec leads available at
http://jcp.org/en/resources/guide
and the template licenses are chock-full of Field-of-Use provisions.
How does one know which JSR's can be safely implemented in open
source?
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On May 13, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, but we're still waiting for our VP of the JCP to sort out his
>>> dissonance and provide a summary report.
>>
>> What dissonance?
>
> You mentioned privately that you didn't want to "push things off a
> cliff". I assume by that you meant opening this discussion here on
> the issues surrounding Harmony and the TCK.
>
So while I'm not thrilled about snippets of private conversation put
on an open list, I'll chalk it up to whatever fury is driving your
engagement in this...
Ok, I looked back at the mail, and I was referring what I think is
the "nuclear option" - withdrawing from the JCP and pushing any
implementation of a JSR out of the Foundation (which I hope that no
one is seriously advocating).
So we didn't get a response. <shrug>
Realistically, I'm not too surprised given that it was in their best
interest to not throw gasoline on this fire before or during their
biggest conference, JavaOne. Sure, I would have preferred the
courtesy of a reply, but considering the source, I'm not surprised.
Maybe we'll get one this week (probably not - Sun recovers from it's
J1 hangover the week after the conference), or maybe not. In some
ways, it doesn't matter. We understand the whole equation (including
Sun's motivations behind their breach of contract) and we believe
that our position is the correct one, both in the letter and the
spirit of the law. To that, I'll note that Sun has yet to actually
dispute this.
The core question is if the JCP is something the foundation wishes to
support or not, and when that is answered, the next question is "to
what degree?". I still am a believer that we can continue our
historically successful efforts to fix the JCP when we are
participating in it. That said, the Sun dispute calls into question
some of my basic beliefs in this area. So....
I believe that only the JCP itself can tell us the answer to the
first question. I don't think of "Sun" as the JCP - the JCP, in my
opinion, is the sum of the constituent members. We must take the
position that the community matters, rather than construct some kind
of Sun-as-all-powerful strawman. When we do that, we give the
boogeyman it's energy. When we believe in our own worldview - that
community matters - the balance of power shifts. Sun has some
unique advantages because they hold a veto on changes to ME, SE and
EE (the platform JSRs) and they run the PMO, but these are in
practice somewhat minor, and as they are historical (like the current
IP flow rules), they can be modernized (like the current IP flow
rules), and the JCP membership and EC do have considerable power.
So my goal is to answer the question of if we want to continue
supporting the JCP when we can determine if Sun's current misbehavior
is tolerated by the membership of the JCP. We've notified the EC of
our situation and had a very vigorous and, IMO, constructive debate/
discussion in Febrary. My next step is to ask the EC for action. :)
geir
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> writes:
> On May 13, 2007, at 3:33 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>> "Davanum Srinivas" <da...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Have we heard from Sun officially on our Open Letter for access to the
>>> TCK for Harmony?
>>
>> AIUI our self-imposed deadline has passed, and negotiations to
>> this point have failed. It's too bad that there's absolutely
>> no public record of those negotiations here or anywhere else,
>> so we'll have to start the discussion from scratch.
>
> Not really.
Ah good then- here's some from the meeting minutes:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/board_minutes_2006_10_25.txt
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/board_minutes_2006_12_20.txt
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2007/board_minutes_2007_01_17.txt
>>
>>> Is it time to figure out the next steps on how to deal with Sun's
>>> reluctance to keep it's agreements?
>>
>> Yes, but we're still waiting for our VP of the JCP to sort out his
>> dissonance and provide a summary report.
>
> What dissonance?
You mentioned privately that you didn't want to "push things off a
cliff". I assume by that you meant opening this discussion here on
the issues surrounding Harmony and the TCK.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On May 13, 2007, at 3:33 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "Davanum Srinivas" <da...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Have we heard from Sun officially on our Open Letter for access to
>> the
>> TCK for Harmony?
>
> AIUI our self-imposed deadline has passed, and negotiations to
> this point have failed. It's too bad that there's absolutely
> no public record of those negotiations here or anywhere else,
> so we'll have to start the discussion from scratch.
Not really.
>
>> Is it time to figure out the next steps on how to deal with Sun's
>> reluctance to keep it's agreements?
>
> Yes, but we're still waiting for our VP of the JCP to sort out his
> dissonance and provide a summary report.
What dissonance?
geir
>
> --
> Joe Schaefer
Re: Any news on the TCK for Harmony?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
"Davanum Srinivas" <da...@gmail.com> writes:
> Folks,
>
> Have we heard from Sun officially on our Open Letter for access to the
> TCK for Harmony?
AIUI our self-imposed deadline has passed, and negotiations to
this point have failed. It's too bad that there's absolutely
no public record of those negotiations here or anywhere else,
so we'll have to start the discussion from scratch.
> Is it time to figure out the next steps on how to deal with Sun's
> reluctance to keep it's agreements?
Yes, but we're still waiting for our VP of the JCP to sort out his
dissonance and provide a summary report.
--
Joe Schaefer