You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net> on 2005/07/15 01:59:21 UTC
[proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Hello,
The OSGi community at large, several Apache committers and members would
like to start a new project based on the existing Oscar OSGi Container
which Richard Hall is graciously willing to donate. Without further
commentary we present to you the proposal for the Oscar project:
Project Oscar
==========
Motivation
----------
Unlike .NET, which requires that applications are packaged as assemblies
with explicit dependencies among them, the Java platform does not offer
sufficient support for modularity. This lack of support complicates not
only Java application development, but also subsequent deployment and
administration. Many of the complications result from the fact that
every project that requires some form of modularity ends up inventing
their own ClassLoader-based approach for solving their needs. This
phenomenon is evident in application servers, integrated development
environments, and any component- or plugin-oriented systems. The OSGi
framework defined by the OSGi Alliance has a long history of addressing
these types of issues and the imminent release of version R4 of the OSGi
specification is set to move the OSGi framework even further along
this path.
The recent adoption of OSGi technology as the modularity layer of the
Eclipse Rich Client Platform (RCP) underscores the inroads that OSGi
technology has made. Further, the announcement of JSR 277 verifies that
demand for modularity in Java has reached a critical point.
This project can serve the greater Java open source community by
providing immediate modularity support for Java applications today
through the OSGi framework, creating a unifying community around open
source OSGi technology, and tracking and participating in the progression
of JSR 277.
Proposal
--------
We propose the creation of a new Apache project, Oscar, that will achieve
the following goals :
1) create a compliant, independent implementation of the OSGi R4 core
framework with framework-dependent services under the Apache License,
Version 2.0.
2) unify resources from the OSGi community to implement, document, maintain,
and support standard OSGi R4 services.
3) provide a focal point for the OSGi community to develop interfaces, APIs,
and other common needs not fully specified by the OSGi R4 specification,
such as store interfaces, aspects of the runtime container's packaging
and configuration, and the design and behavior of bundle repositories.
4) provide a focal point for the open-source OSGi community to develop next
generation enhancements to the core framework and act as a conduit for
the open-source community to the OSGi Alliance.
5) evangelize the OSGi Service Platform within Apache and provide documentation
and support for successful container migrations.
Starting Participants
---------------------
We propose that the following people are considered the starting participants.
We hope to start with a diverse cross-section of the community and preserve
this as we grow. The information in parenthesis indicates other community
participation or relevant experiences of that individual.
These individuals have expressed an interest in participating in the
architecture and design work and in participating as committers for the
Apache-licensed implementation :
Richard Hall (OSGi Alliance (Invited Researcher) and Founder of the Oscar project)
Alex Karasulu (Apache)
Enrique Rodriguez (Apache)
Trustin Lee (Apache)
These individuals will participate as Incubator Mentors :
Alex Karasulu (Apache)
The following Apache Members will be the sponsoring members :
Alex Karasulu (Apache)
Noel Bergman (Apache)
Carsten Ziegeler (Apache)
Berin Loritsch (Apache)
The following community members support this effort :
Daniel Fagerstrom (Apache)
Niclas Hedhman (Apache)
Peter Kriens (OSGi Alliance (Director of Technology) and Managing Director, aQute)
Reinhard Poetz (Apache)
Stefano Mazzocchi (Apache)
Marcel Offermans (+2 others, Luminis)
Rob Walker (Ascert, LLC)
Gerald Friedland (Researcher, Freie Universität Berlin, E-Chalk Project)
Timothy Bennett (Apache and Metro Government of Nashville/Davidson County)
Juan Alonso (Independent)
Stéphane Frénot (Associate Professor, INSA-Lyon/INRIA)
Humberto Cervantes (Service Binder author and Professor/Researcher, UAM Iztapalapa)
Emil Ivov (Ph.D. Candidate, Louis Pasteur University, Strasboug, France)
Tom Enderes (CTO, Gatewide LLC)
Eric Swindell (Software Craftsman, Caribbean Blue)
Jesus Bermejo (Independent)
David Ence (Lockheed Martin)
Ed Anuff (DriveFire)
Rick Litton (Kyocera)
Peter Neubauer (OPS4J)
Francesco Furfari (Domoware, Domotics Lab, ISTI-CNR)
Stefano Lenzi (Domoware, Domotics Lab, ISTI-CNR)
Matteo Demuru (Domoware, Domotics Lab, ISTI-CNR)
Karl Pauls (Raccoon/Eureka/Sopa, Researcher (DFG), Fu-Berlin)
Andreas Oberhack (Apache)
Operating Considerations
------------------------
We have established a list for discussions. Unless your comment is directed
to the general Incubator community or the Incubator PMC, please post
everything to :
oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org
You can subscribe by sending an email to
oscar-dev-subscribe@incubator.apache.org
Until this proposal has been accepted by the Apache Incubator PMC, these lists
are provisional.
--
Alex Karasulu +1-904-982-6992
akarasulu@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 15, 2005, at 7:45 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> As a matter of fact let me ask right now with a request to
> infrastructure for these dev lists. Could the oscar-dev@i.a.o be
> created soon?
Done.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Reinhard,
We still have yet to setup the lists. I will make the request today.
Sorry about the inconvenience. Several people have already tried to
subscribe.
As a matter of fact let me ask right now with a request to
infrastructure for these dev lists. Could the oscar-dev@i.a.o be
created soon?
Thank you kindly,
Alex
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> We have established a list for discussions. Unless your comment is
>> directed
>> to the general Incubator community or the Incubator PMC, please post
>> everything to :
>>
>> oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>
>> You can subscribe by sending an email to
>>
>> oscar-dev-subscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>
>> Until this proposal has been accepted by the Apache Incubator PMC,
>> these lists
>> are provisional.
>
>
> I tried to subscribe but got this:
>
> <os...@incubator.apache.org>:
> Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> We have established a list for discussions. Unless your comment is directed
> to the general Incubator community or the Incubator PMC, please post
> everything to :
>
> oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
> You can subscribe by sending an email to
>
> oscar-dev-subscribe@incubator.apache.org
>
> Until this proposal has been accepted by the Apache Incubator PMC, these
> lists
> are provisional.
I tried to subscribe but got this:
<os...@incubator.apache.org>:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Overnight we gained 5 more supporters.
Heejune Ahn (Independent)
Yalcin Akdogan (Zeroadmin Software)
Juan C. Dueñas (ITEA/Eureka researcher and Associate Professor, DIT-UPM)
José L. Ruiz (PhD Candidate, DIT-UPM)
Manuel Santillan (PhD Candidate, DIT-UPM)
Enrique
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 19:59 -0400, Alex Karasulu wrote:
<snip/>
>The following community members support this effort :
>
> Daniel Fagerstrom (Apache)
> Niclas Hedhman (Apache)
> Peter Kriens (OSGi Alliance (Director of Technology) and Managing Director, aQute)
> Reinhard Poetz (Apache)
> Stefano Mazzocchi (Apache)
> Marcel Offermans (+2 others, Luminis)
> Rob Walker (Ascert, LLC)
> Gerald Friedland (Researcher, Freie Universität Berlin, E-Chalk Project)
> Timothy Bennett (Apache and Metro Government of Nashville/Davidson County)
> Juan Alonso (Independent)
> Stéphane Frénot (Associate Professor, INSA-Lyon/INRIA)
> Humberto Cervantes (Service Binder author and Professor/Researcher, UAM Iztapalapa)
> Emil Ivov (Ph.D. Candidate, Louis Pasteur University, Strasboug, France)
> Tom Enderes (CTO, Gatewide LLC)
> Eric Swindell (Software Craftsman, Caribbean Blue)
> Jesus Bermejo (Independent)
> David Ence (Lockheed Martin)
> Ed Anuff (DriveFire)
> Rick Litton (Kyocera)
> Peter Neubauer (OPS4J)
> Francesco Furfari (Domoware, Domotics Lab, ISTI-CNR)
> Stefano Lenzi (Domoware, Domotics Lab, ISTI-CNR)
> Matteo Demuru (Domoware, Domotics Lab, ISTI-CNR)
> Karl Pauls (Raccoon/Eureka/Sopa, Researcher (DFG), Fu-Berlin)
> Andreas Oberhack (Apache)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> The Apache Software Foundation has applied to participate on the JSR.
> Currently, the ASF projects interested in this JSR are Harmony and
> Maven. I assume that people from OSCAR are?
Yes, Richard Hall of Oscar.
Enrique
>
> geir
>
>> Enrique
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
On Jul 15, 2005, at 9:48 AM, Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
>> +1 .. do you guys plan for Oscar to become a JSR 277 impl as well?
>> Are
>> the ASF folks on that JSR involved with Oscar?)
>>
>
> Hi, Sanjiva,
>
> I don't know if any Apache folks are on that JSR, but Richard Hall
> (of Oscar and this proposal) has applied to be, as an individual.
>
> As for Oscar becoming a JSR 277 impl, we can't plan for that since
> there is no spec. JSR 277 has only recently come into being and it
> targets JDK 1.7, which is a ways away.
>
The Apache Software Foundation has applied to participate on the
JSR. Currently, the ASF projects interested in this JSR are Harmony
and Maven. I assume that people from OSCAR are?
geir
> Enrique
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geir@optonline.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> +1 .. do you guys plan for Oscar to become a JSR 277 impl as well? Are
> the ASF folks on that JSR involved with Oscar?)
Hi, Sanjiva,
I don't know if any Apache folks are on that JSR, but Richard Hall (of
Oscar and this proposal) has applied to be, as an individual.
As for Oscar becoming a JSR 277 impl, we can't plan for that since there
is no spec. JSR 277 has only recently come into being and it targets
JDK 1.7, which is a ways away.
Enrique
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
IIRC there were some folks already formally rep'ing ASF. Check with Geir
please ..
Sanjiva.
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 10:43 -0400, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
> >+1 .. do you guys plan for Oscar to become a JSR 277 impl as well? Are
> >the ASF folks on that JSR involved with Oscar
> >
> Yes Richard Hall will most likely be on this JSR I believe..
>
> <snip/>
>
> Alex
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>+1 .. do you guys plan for Oscar to become a JSR 277 impl as well? Are
>the ASF folks on that JSR involved with Oscar
>
Yes Richard Hall will most likely be on this JSR I believe..
<snip/>
Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
+1 .. do you guys plan for Oscar to become a JSR 277 impl as well? Are
the ASF folks on that JSR involved with Oscar?)
Thanks,
Sanjiva.
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 19:59 -0400, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The OSGi community at large, several Apache committers and members would
> like to start a new project based on the existing Oscar OSGi Container
> which Richard Hall is graciously willing to donate. Without further
> commentary we present to you the proposal for the Oscar project:
>
> Project Oscar
> ==========
>
>
> Motivation
> ----------
>
> Unlike .NET, which requires that applications are packaged as assemblies
> with explicit dependencies among them, the Java platform does not offer
> sufficient support for modularity. This lack of support complicates not
> only Java application development, but also subsequent deployment and
> administration. Many of the complications result from the fact that
> every project that requires some form of modularity ends up inventing
> their own ClassLoader-based approach for solving their needs. This
> phenomenon is evident in application servers, integrated development
> environments, and any component- or plugin-oriented systems. The OSGi
> framework defined by the OSGi Alliance has a long history of addressing
> these types of issues and the imminent release of version R4 of the OSGi
> specification is set to move the OSGi framework even further along
> this path.
>
> The recent adoption of OSGi technology as the modularity layer of the
> Eclipse Rich Client Platform (RCP) underscores the inroads that OSGi
> technology has made. Further, the announcement of JSR 277 verifies that
> demand for modularity in Java has reached a critical point.
>
> This project can serve the greater Java open source community by
> providing immediate modularity support for Java applications today
> through the OSGi framework, creating a unifying community around open
> source OSGi technology, and tracking and participating in the progression
> of JSR 277.
>
>
> Proposal
> --------
>
> We propose the creation of a new Apache project, Oscar, that will achieve
> the following goals :
>
> 1) create a compliant, independent implementation of the OSGi R4 core
> framework with framework-dependent services under the Apache License,
> Version 2.0.
>
> 2) unify resources from the OSGi community to implement, document, maintain,
> and support standard OSGi R4 services.
>
> 3) provide a focal point for the OSGi community to develop interfaces, APIs,
> and other common needs not fully specified by the OSGi R4 specification,
> such as store interfaces, aspects of the runtime container's packaging
> and configuration, and the design and behavior of bundle repositories.
>
> 4) provide a focal point for the open-source OSGi community to develop next
> generation enhancements to the core framework and act as a conduit for
> the open-source community to the OSGi Alliance.
>
> 5) evangelize the OSGi Service Platform within Apache and provide documentation
> and support for successful container migrations.
>
>
> Starting Participants
> ---------------------
>
> We propose that the following people are considered the starting participants.
> We hope to start with a diverse cross-section of the community and preserve
> this as we grow. The information in parenthesis indicates other community
> participation or relevant experiences of that individual.
>
> These individuals have expressed an interest in participating in the
> architecture and design work and in participating as committers for the
> Apache-licensed implementation :
>
> Richard Hall (OSGi Alliance (Invited Researcher) and Founder of the Oscar project)
> Alex Karasulu (Apache)
> Enrique Rodriguez (Apache)
> Trustin Lee (Apache)
>
> These individuals will participate as Incubator Mentors :
>
> Alex Karasulu (Apache)
>
> The following Apache Members will be the sponsoring members :
>
> Alex Karasulu (Apache)
> Noel Bergman (Apache)
> Carsten Ziegeler (Apache)
> Berin Loritsch (Apache)
>
> The following community members support this effort :
>
> Daniel Fagerstrom (Apache)
> Niclas Hedhman (Apache)
> Peter Kriens (OSGi Alliance (Director of Technology) and Managing Director, aQute)
> Reinhard Poetz (Apache)
> Stefano Mazzocchi (Apache)
> Marcel Offermans (+2 others, Luminis)
> Rob Walker (Ascert, LLC)
> Gerald Friedland (Researcher, Freie Universität Berlin, E-Chalk Project)
> Timothy Bennett (Apache and Metro Government of Nashville/Davidson County)
> Juan Alonso (Independent)
> Stéphane Frénot (Associate Professor, INSA-Lyon/INRIA)
> Humberto Cervantes (Service Binder author and Professor/Researcher, UAM Iztapalapa)
> Emil Ivov (Ph.D. Candidate, Louis Pasteur University, Strasboug, France)
> Tom Enderes (CTO, Gatewide LLC)
> Eric Swindell (Software Craftsman, Caribbean Blue)
> Jesus Bermejo (Independent)
> David Ence (Lockheed Martin)
> Ed Anuff (DriveFire)
> Rick Litton (Kyocera)
> Peter Neubauer (OPS4J)
> Francesco Furfari (Domoware, Domotics Lab, ISTI-CNR)
> Stefano Lenzi (Domoware, Domotics Lab, ISTI-CNR)
> Matteo Demuru (Domoware, Domotics Lab, ISTI-CNR)
> Karl Pauls (Raccoon/Eureka/Sopa, Researcher (DFG), Fu-Berlin)
> Andreas Oberhack (Apache)
>
>
> Operating Considerations
> ------------------------
>
> We have established a list for discussions. Unless your comment is directed
> to the general Incubator community or the Incubator PMC, please post
> everything to :
>
> oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
> You can subscribe by sending an email to
>
> oscar-dev-subscribe@incubator.apache.org
>
> Until this proposal has been accepted by the Apache Incubator PMC, these lists
> are provisional.
>
>
> --
> Alex Karasulu +1-904-982-6992
> akarasulu@apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 17 July 2005 19:51, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
SO SORRY, I must be too tired...
Don't know why I referencing Justin, when **Roy** is the one who is concerned.
My deepest apologies.
Niclas
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 17 July 2005 19:51, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
SO SORRY, I must be too tired...
Don't know why I referencing Justin, when **Roy** is the one who is concerned.
My deepest apologies.
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>>>> I said every contributor must sign the CLA. If there are no
>>>> contributors (or only one) then that should be an easy process.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Every contributor will have to submit a CLA, or that code cannot be
>>> accepted. We will also ask for a Software Grant to cover the
>>> existing code
>>> base.
>>>
>>> Does this resolve your concerns, at least sufficiently to begin
>>> Incubation
>>> of the project?
>>
>>
>>
>> My concerns were aimed at graduation, not beginning incubation.
>> I already created the mailing lists based on the number of
>> incubator members already indicating support.
>
>
> I take it this is the green light for us to start collecting the
> required CLAs, Grants and knocking on infrastructure's door? I'll kick
> off the process.
Great, it sounds like Alex will get on infra and I'll facilitate Richard
Hall's completion of a Software Grant and CLA and, once SVN infra is
ready and his doco is in, make sure he has the necessary config to get
his development line committed.
Enrique
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> I said every contributor must sign the CLA. If there are no
>>> contributors (or only one) then that should be an easy process.
>>
>>
>> Every contributor will have to submit a CLA, or that code cannot be
>> accepted. We will also ask for a Software Grant to cover the
>> existing code
>> base.
>>
>> Does this resolve your concerns, at least sufficiently to begin
>> Incubation
>> of the project?
>
>
> My concerns were aimed at graduation, not beginning incubation.
> I already created the mailing lists based on the number of
> incubator members already indicating support.
I take it this is the green light for us to start collecting the
required CLAs, Grants and knocking on infrastructure's door? I'll kick
off the process.
Thanks guys,
Alex
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
>> I said every contributor must sign the CLA. If there are no
>> contributors (or only one) then that should be an easy process.
>
> Every contributor will have to submit a CLA, or that code cannot be
> accepted. We will also ask for a Software Grant to cover the existing
> code
> base.
>
> Does this resolve your concerns, at least sufficiently to begin
> Incubation
> of the project?
My concerns were aimed at graduation, not beginning incubation.
I already created the mailing lists based on the number of
incubator members already indicating support.
....Roy
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> Every contributor will have to submit a CLA, or that code cannot be
> accepted. We will also ask for a Software Grant to cover the existing code
> base.
>
> Does this resolve your concerns, at least sufficiently to begin Incubation
> of the project?
Code grant received before code accepted/imported.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQt6jdJrNPMCpn3XdAQJ2CAP/Q5JDT+J1OE2kV9fYmLfHeshylLimSNpu
vplde7iB6O7dhdUlyKn3/6WIupfPIY+iGV8C10GptliuPIMqln7gHVmaAudafEwN
7qhJUXWa7+vxA5Ch7HCi9wKJF/NYzgTu6VklqnxwHuwiHAY7AMzSQI+z3HqHXro9
1jBmqFHoma0=
=Kiod
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> Every contributor will have to submit a CLA, or that code cannot be
> accepted. We will also ask for a Software Grant to cover the existing code
> base.
>
> Does this resolve your concerns, at least sufficiently to begin Incubation
> of the project?
Code grant received before code accepted/imported.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQt6jdJrNPMCpn3XdAQJ2CAP/Q5JDT+J1OE2kV9fYmLfHeshylLimSNpu
vplde7iB6O7dhdUlyKn3/6WIupfPIY+iGV8C10GptliuPIMqln7gHVmaAudafEwN
7qhJUXWa7+vxA5Ch7HCi9wKJF/NYzgTu6VklqnxwHuwiHAY7AMzSQI+z3HqHXro9
1jBmqFHoma0=
=Kiod
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
RE: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Roy,
> I said every contributor must sign the CLA. If there are no
> contributors (or only one) then that should be an easy process.
Every contributor will have to submit a CLA, or that code cannot be
accepted. We will also ask for a Software Grant to cover the existing code
base.
Does this resolve your concerns, at least sufficiently to begin Incubation
of the project?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Roy,
> I said every contributor must sign the CLA. If there are no
> contributors (or only one) then that should be an easy process.
Every contributor will have to submit a CLA, or that code cannot be
accepted. We will also ask for a Software Grant to cover the existing code
base.
Does this resolve your concerns, at least sufficiently to begin Incubation
of the project?
--- Noel
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 17, 2005, at 4:51 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> AFAIK, Copyright only applies to the RIGHT to COPY. Not the RIGHT to
> CREATE,
> or right to implement.
It applies to all of those things listed in the quote from the
Apache license that I sent:
to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly
display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
Work and such Derivative Works
which of course is why I included that explicitly in our license.
> Now, we are first and foremost looking at a scenario, where WE look at
> the
> specification, READ it, and MAKE something else that behaves as what
> the
> Specification describes. Where is the COPY in question?
> We won't copy the material provided, i.e. the specification document.
> Nothing
> to copy, hence no Copyrights applies.
I don't believe that is true of the suggested code donation.
In any case, if you have the specification in front of you and
you read it while typing its contents into your code, that is copying.
> The only piece that are up for debate is the Java interfaces and other
> standard classes which are required to fulfill the Specification. To
> me, this
> sounds similar to the Sun restrictions on redistribution of certain
> Java
> platform extensions, that Geronimo re-implements as a convenience for
> the
> developers and edge-users. Does Geronimo have "prior written
> authorization of
> Sun and its licensors" for each of the APIs re-implemented, as the
> Specification Copyright notice states? (template from "JavaMail API
> Design
> Specification")
Yes, Sun's copyright notice explicitly grants those rights to
anyone who develops an independent implementation and passes the
official TCK, as well as additional rights to implement experiments,
both of which have been used by Geronimo. Negotiating those rights
has been 99% of our Apache activity within the JCP.
Likewise, the JSPA and the specification license contains a specific
licenses to any patents owned by the EG that are necessarily
infringed by implementations, such that we don't get screwed by
submarine patents.
In contrast, the OSGi statement contains no license and explicitly
says that the alliance companies may sue us for implementing it.
Furthermore, the members agreement only supplies OSGi the right to
sublicense to the alliance members, and thus just having OSGi
agree to redistribution is not enough.
Does that make the problem clear?
> I agree that this is not "friendly". But I am not arguing about the
> Membership
> agreement at all. It is not ASF's concern, as it is not a member and
> have not
> agree to any of that. That is something between the owner of any
> "imported"
> codebases (such as Oscar) and the OSGi Alliance and the other members.
> I am
> willing to start an implementation from scratch if that is necessary.
> So if
> that is the your concern, Justin, then please spell that out and not
> put
> everything into one basket and a categorical "Every member must sign
> the
> ICLA.".
I said every contributor must sign the CLA. If there are no
contributors (or only one) then that should be an easy process.
> Honestly, looking at your responses for TSIK and this OSGi proposal, I
> am
> getting mixed signals. On one side; "Don't search for problems. Let
> them come
> to us, and we react on it." On the other; "If we look into the
> membership
> agreement, that one or more individuals has with the organization that
> publishes the specification, then it is *possible* that there are
> parts of
> that specification that are not free of patent claims."
>
> Why is OSGi's approach different from OASIS??
The OASIS WSS approach consists of a group of companies that have
publicly stated they will provide patent licenses *if* anything
in their specs turn out to be covered by their patents. The license
specifically says
1. Each Author grants permission to OASIS and OASIS members the
right to copy, display, perform, modify and distribute the
Web Services Security ("WS-Security") draft specification and to
authorize others to do the foregoing, in any medium without fee
or royalty, for the purpose of further developing the WS-Security
specification in the WSSTC as set forth in the draft WSS TC charter.
and in particular "authorize others to do the foregoing". That is
a copyright license. It goes on to say:
2. Each Author commits to grant a non sub-licenseable,
non-transferable license to third parties, under royalty-free
and other reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions,
to certain of their respective patent claims that such Author
deems necessary to implement required portokions of the
WS-Security specification, provided a reciprocal license is
granted.
which *might* be an issue *if* any of those authors did have a
necessary patent claim *and* refused to give royalty-free terms.
As far as we have been able to determine, they have no such patents
and thus we cannot possibly infringe them, nor would we be subject
to penalties if they did have patents because we asked them and
they did not say "stop".
In contrast, the OSGi approach does not grant us permission to do
anything and explicitly states that others (including members)
may sue us for infringement. We have no permission to implement
under the OSGi "approach". Therefore, we need to obtain permission,
and our standard form for doing so is the CLA.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 17, 2005, at 4:51 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> AFAIK, Copyright only applies to the RIGHT to COPY. Not the RIGHT to
> CREATE,
> or right to implement.
It applies to all of those things listed in the quote from the
Apache license that I sent:
to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly
display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
Work and such Derivative Works
which of course is why I included that explicitly in our license.
> Now, we are first and foremost looking at a scenario, where WE look at
> the
> specification, READ it, and MAKE something else that behaves as what
> the
> Specification describes. Where is the COPY in question?
> We won't copy the material provided, i.e. the specification document.
> Nothing
> to copy, hence no Copyrights applies.
I don't believe that is true of the suggested code donation.
In any case, if you have the specification in front of you and
you read it while typing its contents into your code, that is copying.
> The only piece that are up for debate is the Java interfaces and other
> standard classes which are required to fulfill the Specification. To
> me, this
> sounds similar to the Sun restrictions on redistribution of certain
> Java
> platform extensions, that Geronimo re-implements as a convenience for
> the
> developers and edge-users. Does Geronimo have "prior written
> authorization of
> Sun and its licensors" for each of the APIs re-implemented, as the
> Specification Copyright notice states? (template from "JavaMail API
> Design
> Specification")
Yes, Sun's copyright notice explicitly grants those rights to
anyone who develops an independent implementation and passes the
official TCK, as well as additional rights to implement experiments,
both of which have been used by Geronimo. Negotiating those rights
has been 99% of our Apache activity within the JCP.
Likewise, the JSPA and the specification license contains a specific
licenses to any patents owned by the EG that are necessarily
infringed by implementations, such that we don't get screwed by
submarine patents.
In contrast, the OSGi statement contains no license and explicitly
says that the alliance companies may sue us for implementing it.
Furthermore, the members agreement only supplies OSGi the right to
sublicense to the alliance members, and thus just having OSGi
agree to redistribution is not enough.
Does that make the problem clear?
> I agree that this is not "friendly". But I am not arguing about the
> Membership
> agreement at all. It is not ASF's concern, as it is not a member and
> have not
> agree to any of that. That is something between the owner of any
> "imported"
> codebases (such as Oscar) and the OSGi Alliance and the other members.
> I am
> willing to start an implementation from scratch if that is necessary.
> So if
> that is the your concern, Justin, then please spell that out and not
> put
> everything into one basket and a categorical "Every member must sign
> the
> ICLA.".
I said every contributor must sign the CLA. If there are no
contributors (or only one) then that should be an easy process.
> Honestly, looking at your responses for TSIK and this OSGi proposal, I
> am
> getting mixed signals. On one side; "Don't search for problems. Let
> them come
> to us, and we react on it." On the other; "If we look into the
> membership
> agreement, that one or more individuals has with the organization that
> publishes the specification, then it is *possible* that there are
> parts of
> that specification that are not free of patent claims."
>
> Why is OSGi's approach different from OASIS??
The OASIS WSS approach consists of a group of companies that have
publicly stated they will provide patent licenses *if* anything
in their specs turn out to be covered by their patents. The license
specifically says
1. Each Author grants permission to OASIS and OASIS members the
right to copy, display, perform, modify and distribute the
Web Services Security ("WS-Security") draft specification and to
authorize others to do the foregoing, in any medium without fee
or royalty, for the purpose of further developing the WS-Security
specification in the WSSTC as set forth in the draft WSS TC charter.
and in particular "authorize others to do the foregoing". That is
a copyright license. It goes on to say:
2. Each Author commits to grant a non sub-licenseable,
non-transferable license to third parties, under royalty-free
and other reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions,
to certain of their respective patent claims that such Author
deems necessary to implement required portokions of the
WS-Security specification, provided a reciprocal license is
granted.
which *might* be an issue *if* any of those authors did have a
necessary patent claim *and* refused to give royalty-free terms.
As far as we have been able to determine, they have no such patents
and thus we cannot possibly infringe them, nor would we be subject
to penalties if they did have patents because we asked them and
they did not say "stop".
In contrast, the OSGi approach does not grant us permission to do
anything and explicitly states that others (including members)
may sue us for infringement. We have no permission to implement
under the OSGi "approach". Therefore, we need to obtain permission,
and our standard form for doing so is the CLA.
....Roy
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 17 July 2005 18:36, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Under international copyright law,
> recipients must gain permission from the copyright owner in order
> to redistribute or create derivative works.
You are probably better accustomed to international law than I am. IANAL. But,
AFAIK, Copyright only applies to the RIGHT to COPY. Not the RIGHT to CREATE,
or right to implement.
Now, we are first and foremost looking at a scenario, where WE look at the
specification, READ it, and MAKE something else that behaves as what the
Specification describes. Where is the COPY in question?
We won't copy the material provided, i.e. the specification document. Nothing
to copy, hence no Copyrights applies.
The only piece that are up for debate is the Java interfaces and other
standard classes which are required to fulfill the Specification. To me, this
sounds similar to the Sun restrictions on redistribution of certain Java
platform extensions, that Geronimo re-implements as a convenience for the
developers and edge-users. Does Geronimo have "prior written authorization of
Sun and its licensors" for each of the APIs re-implemented, as the
Specification Copyright notice states? (template from "JavaMail API Design
Specification")
AND the notice in the JavaMail Specification is more explicit about
prohibiting its use, than the corresponding disclaimers of the OSGi
specification;
<quote src="JavaMail API Design Specification">
This product or documentation is protected by copyright and distributed under
licenses restricting its use, copying, distribution, and decompilation.
</quote>
> The OSGi membership
> agreement, included below, explicitly states that the MEMBERS
> retain ownership on what they do and OSGi is only given the right
> to license their employee's work and to sublicense any combined work
> to other MEMBERS.
I agree that this is not "friendly". But I am not arguing about the Membership
agreement at all. It is not ASF's concern, as it is not a member and have not
agree to any of that. That is something between the owner of any "imported"
codebases (such as Oscar) and the OSGi Alliance and the other members. I am
willing to start an implementation from scratch if that is necessary. So if
that is the your concern, Justin, then please spell that out and not put
everything into one basket and a categorical "Every member must sign the
ICLA.".
Honestly, looking at your responses for TSIK and this OSGi proposal, I am
getting mixed signals. On one side; "Don't search for problems. Let them come
to us, and we react on it." On the other; "If we look into the membership
agreement, that one or more individuals has with the organization that
publishes the specification, then it is *possible* that there are parts of
that specification that are not free of patent claims."
Why is OSGi's approach different from OASIS??
Now at the end, I see Enrique has additional good answers, and I hope those
are enough to satisfy Justin's concerns. Feel free to ignore the above ;o)
Cheers
Niclas
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 17 July 2005 18:36, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Under international copyright law,
> recipients must gain permission from the copyright owner in order
> to redistribute or create derivative works.
You are probably better accustomed to international law than I am. IANAL. But,
AFAIK, Copyright only applies to the RIGHT to COPY. Not the RIGHT to CREATE,
or right to implement.
Now, we are first and foremost looking at a scenario, where WE look at the
specification, READ it, and MAKE something else that behaves as what the
Specification describes. Where is the COPY in question?
We won't copy the material provided, i.e. the specification document. Nothing
to copy, hence no Copyrights applies.
The only piece that are up for debate is the Java interfaces and other
standard classes which are required to fulfill the Specification. To me, this
sounds similar to the Sun restrictions on redistribution of certain Java
platform extensions, that Geronimo re-implements as a convenience for the
developers and edge-users. Does Geronimo have "prior written authorization of
Sun and its licensors" for each of the APIs re-implemented, as the
Specification Copyright notice states? (template from "JavaMail API Design
Specification")
AND the notice in the JavaMail Specification is more explicit about
prohibiting its use, than the corresponding disclaimers of the OSGi
specification;
<quote src="JavaMail API Design Specification">
This product or documentation is protected by copyright and distributed under
licenses restricting its use, copying, distribution, and decompilation.
</quote>
> The OSGi membership
> agreement, included below, explicitly states that the MEMBERS
> retain ownership on what they do and OSGi is only given the right
> to license their employee's work and to sublicense any combined work
> to other MEMBERS.
I agree that this is not "friendly". But I am not arguing about the Membership
agreement at all. It is not ASF's concern, as it is not a member and have not
agree to any of that. That is something between the owner of any "imported"
codebases (such as Oscar) and the OSGi Alliance and the other members. I am
willing to start an implementation from scratch if that is necessary. So if
that is the your concern, Justin, then please spell that out and not put
everything into one basket and a categorical "Every member must sign the
ICLA.".
Honestly, looking at your responses for TSIK and this OSGi proposal, I am
getting mixed signals. On one side; "Don't search for problems. Let them come
to us, and we react on it." On the other; "If we look into the membership
agreement, that one or more individuals has with the organization that
publishes the specification, then it is *possible* that there are parts of
that specification that are not free of patent claims."
Why is OSGi's approach different from OASIS??
Now at the end, I see Enrique has additional good answers, and I hope those
are enough to satisfy Justin's concerns. Feel free to ignore the above ;o)
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Yes, that is why I asked Roy to make a distinction between
> the Specification and any donation of implementation.
I cannot visualize how ANY software standard can effectively be open unless
its specification is available to everyone under an open source license. By
the time the specification is published by someone like IETF or OASIS, it
has often lost the identity of its contributors and there is no Apache CLA
that would directly apply to it.
Of course, if someone contributed to Apache an implementation of a
specification, that contribution would presumably be covered by a CLA.
The reason we need an open source license is that organizations like Apache
and their customers are likely to copy materials from a specification in
order to implement the specification. Furthermore some specification owners
might argue (Sun does, for example, or at least they used to) that
implementations of a specification are derivative works of that
specification (even though specific code snippets aren't copied or aren't
copyrightable).
So if Apache intends to implement a specification for an industry standard,
it would be wise to ask if that specification is available under an open
source license.
I leave for another thread the issues about patent licenses for those
software standards.
/Larry Rosen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:niclas@hedhman.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:43 PM
> To: oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org; legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
>
> On Sunday 17 July 2005 20:22, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > > I think I would get it from the Specification itself,
> "Legal Terms
> > > and Conditions regarding the Specification";
> >
> > Niclas, I may be wrong, so fix me, if required. But my
> impression is,
> > that those terms apply to the *specification* and not to
> any *software
> > implementing the specification*, and you seem to understand the
> > latter.
>
> Yes, that is why I asked Roy to make a distinction between
> the Specification and any donation of implementation.
>
> And since R4 is not out, this debate seems a bit "off edge".
>
> Assuming R4 is more explicit, and Richard Hall is in the
> clear, what is the problem? Well. I will keep my mouth shut
> and await further announcements.
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
RE: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Yes, that is why I asked Roy to make a distinction between
> the Specification and any donation of implementation.
I cannot visualize how ANY software standard can effectively be open unless
its specification is available to everyone under an open source license. By
the time the specification is published by someone like IETF or OASIS, it
has often lost the identity of its contributors and there is no Apache CLA
that would directly apply to it.
Of course, if someone contributed to Apache an implementation of a
specification, that contribution would presumably be covered by a CLA.
The reason we need an open source license is that organizations like Apache
and their customers are likely to copy materials from a specification in
order to implement the specification. Furthermore some specification owners
might argue (Sun does, for example, or at least they used to) that
implementations of a specification are derivative works of that
specification (even though specific code snippets aren't copied or aren't
copyrightable).
So if Apache intends to implement a specification for an industry standard,
it would be wise to ask if that specification is available under an open
source license.
I leave for another thread the issues about patent licenses for those
software standards.
/Larry Rosen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:niclas@hedhman.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:43 PM
> To: oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org; legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
>
> On Sunday 17 July 2005 20:22, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > > I think I would get it from the Specification itself,
> "Legal Terms
> > > and Conditions regarding the Specification";
> >
> > Niclas, I may be wrong, so fix me, if required. But my
> impression is,
> > that those terms apply to the *specification* and not to
> any *software
> > implementing the specification*, and you seem to understand the
> > latter.
>
> Yes, that is why I asked Roy to make a distinction between
> the Specification and any donation of implementation.
>
> And since R4 is not out, this debate seems a bit "off edge".
>
> Assuming R4 is more explicit, and Richard Hall is in the
> clear, what is the problem? Well. I will keep my mouth shut
> and await further announcements.
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 17 July 2005 20:22, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > I think I would get it from the Specification itself, "Legal Terms and
> > Conditions regarding the Specification";
>
> Niclas, I may be wrong, so fix me, if required. But my impression is,
> that those terms apply to the *specification* and not to any *software
> implementing the specification*, and you seem to understand the
> latter.
Yes, that is why I asked Roy to make a distinction between the Specification
and any donation of implementation.
And since R4 is not out, this debate seems a bit "off edge".
Assuming R4 is more explicit, and Richard Hall is in the clear, what is the
problem? Well. I will keep my mouth shut and await further announcements.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 17 July 2005 20:22, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > I think I would get it from the Specification itself, "Legal Terms and
> > Conditions regarding the Specification";
>
> Niclas, I may be wrong, so fix me, if required. But my impression is,
> that those terms apply to the *specification* and not to any *software
> implementing the specification*, and you seem to understand the
> latter.
Yes, that is why I asked Roy to make a distinction between the Specification
and any donation of implementation.
And since R4 is not out, this debate seems a bit "off edge".
Assuming R4 is more explicit, and Richard Hall is in the clear, what is the
problem? Well. I will keep my mouth shut and await further announcements.
Cheers
Niclas
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
> I think I would get it from the Specification itself, "Legal Terms and
> Conditions regarding the Specification";
Niclas, I may be wrong, so fix me, if required. But my impression is,
that those terms apply to the *specification* and not to any *software
implementing the specification*, and you seem to understand the
latter.
Jochen
--
What are the first steps on the moon, compared to your child's?
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
> I think I would get it from the Specification itself, "Legal Terms and
> Conditions regarding the Specification";
Niclas, I may be wrong, so fix me, if required. But my impression is,
that those terms apply to the *specification* and not to any *software
implementing the specification*, and you seem to understand the
latter.
Jochen
--
What are the first steps on the moon, compared to your child's?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
>>> Like the RFC process the specifications are crafted by a closed
>>> group. However anyone can implement these specifications.
>>
>> I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
>
> I think I would get it from the Specification itself, "Legal Terms and
> Conditions regarding the Specification";
That's impossible. Here are example copyright licenses:
BSD:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, are permitted provided that the following
conditions are met:
Apache:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each
Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide,
non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright
license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly
display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
GPL:
You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that
you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep
intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the
absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the
Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
Do you see anything even remotely like the above phrases in the
below license to the OSGi specification?
Thank you for your request. The download of OSGi specifications
and specification files are covered by Legal Terms and Conditions
as appended below. Please read these Terms and Conditions.
If you choose to download the OSGi specifications and
specification files you are agreeing to these Legal Terms and
Conditions. To download the OSGi specification, please read the
following Licensing Agreement and then click the link below and
proceed to the download page.
LEGAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING SPECIFICATION
Implementation of certain elements of the Open Services Gateway
Initiative (OSGi)Specification may be subject to third party
intellectual property rights, including without limitation,
patent rights (such a third party may or may not be a member
of OSGi). OSGi is not responsible and shall not be held
responsible in any manner for identifying or failing to identify
any or all such third party intellectual property rights.
THE RECIPIENT ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT THE SPECIFICATION
IS PROVIDED AS IS AND WITH NO WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER, WHETHER
EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO
ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, NONINFRINGEMENT, FITNESS OF
ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR ANY WARRANTY OTHERWISE ARISING OUT
OF ANY PROPOSAL, SPECIFICATION, OR SAMPLE. THE RECIPIENT'S USE
OF THE SPECIFICATION IS SOLELY AT THE RECIPIENT'S OWN RISK.
THE RECIPIENT'S USE OF THE SPECIFICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE
RECIPIENT'S OSGi MEMBER AGREEMENT, IN THE EVENT THAT THE
RECIPIENT IS AN OSGi MEMBER. IN NO EVENT SHALL OSGi BE LIABLE
OR OBLIGATED TO THE RECIPIENT OR ANY THIRD PARTY IN ANY MANNER
FOR ANY SPECIAL, NON-COMPENSATORY, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, STATUTORY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS AND LOST REVENUE, REGARDLESS OF
THE FORM OF ACTION, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF OSGi HAS
BEEN INFORMED OF OR IS AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH
DAMAGES IN ADVANCE. THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH ABOVE SHALL BE
DEEMED TO APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE
LAW AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE
OF ANY LIMITED REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE RECIPIENT.
THE RECIPIENT ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT THE RECIPIENT
HAS FULLY CONSIDERED THE FOREGOING ALLOCATION OF RISK AND
FINDS IT REASONABLE, AND THAT THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS ARE
AN ESSENTIAL BASIS OF THE BARGAIN BETWEEN THE RECIPIENT AND OSGi.
IF THE RECIPIENT USES THE SPECIFICATION, THE RECIPIENT AGREES
TO ALL OF THE FOREGOING TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF THE RECIPIENT
DOES NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, THE RECIPIENT
SHOULD NOT USE THE SPECIFICATION AND SHOULD CONTACT OSGi
IMMEDIATELY.
I don't see any license there. Under international copyright law,
recipients must gain permission from the copyright owner in order
to redistribute or create derivative works. The OSGi membership
agreement, included below, explicitly states that the MEMBERS
retain ownership on what they do and OSGi is only given the right
to license their employee's work and to sublicense any combined work
to other MEMBERS. Thus, my interpretation is that OSGi does not
have sufficient rights in combined works to simply license them on
their own to the ASF.
Therefore, according to OSGi documentation, we need a separate
CLA from every significant contributor to the code base before
we can distribute that code at Apache.
....Roy
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
moving discussion to oscar-dev and legal-discuss
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 17 July 2005 02:45, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> OSGi specifications are free to implement.
>
> > Like the RFC process the specifications are crafted by a closed
> > group. However anyone can implement these specifications.
>
> I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
I think I would get it from the Specification itself, "Legal Terms and
Conditions regarding the Specification";
<quote>
The recipient acknowledges and agrees that the specification is provided "as
is" and with no warranties whatsoever, whether express, implied or statutory,
including but not limited to any warranty of merchantability,
noninfringement, fitness of any particular purpose, or any warranty otherwise
arising out of any proposal, specification or sample. The recipients use of
the specification is subject to the recipients OSGi member agreement, in the
event that the recipient is an OSGi member.
</quote>
Ok, so it is a disclaimer. What does it say?
* "as is", you decide what can be done with it *
* we warrant nothing. *
BSD style.
* If you are member, you have addtional obligations *
ASF is not.
So that part, I would say is not an issue here.
The first paragraph says;
<quote>
Implementation of certain elements of the Open Services Gateway
Initiative[sic!] (OSGi) Specification may be subject to third party
intellectual property rights, including without limitation, patent rights (
such a third party may or may not be a member of OSGi). OSGi is not
responsible and shall not be held responsible in any manner for identifying
or failing to identify any or all such third party intellectual property
rights.
</quote>
Another disclaimer. What does it say;
* OSGi is not tracking patents, and that the Spec may infringe. *
Is that much different from ASF?? Yes, OSGi doesn't claim here that the
non-avoidable parts of the spec is free from Patents. ASF Contributors make
that guarantee and it is transferable downstream.
Is that much different from OASIS? IMHO, No, it is exactly the same thing, and
Roy told us NOT to go searching for patent rights, or reasons for not doing
something, as late as last Friday.
So, where does that leave us.
Richard Hall (others?) is/are member(s) of the OSGi Alliance and covered by
the Member agreement, and may or may not be allowed to contribute to the ASF
under the ICLA.
For all non-members, the Member Agreement shall be ignored and contributions
towards the implementation executed just like any other project.
Richard Hall (others?) need to review his own position of whether or not he
can sign off the ICLA and contribute Oscar into the ASF. Considering the OSS
licensing of Oscar today, I assume that he has done so already, and clarified
any subtleties with the OSGi Alliance before.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
>> Does it make sense to have our own copy? I figure we'll want to make
>> them work in our build process(es).
>
> I think we should have our own copies, because we will most likely want
> to break them up and distribute them piecemeal any way. For example, we
> don't want to include the entire osgi.jar file with the framework,
> because most of the service definitions are not necessary. Likewise,
> service implementations will likely only want to include their specific
> service interfaces, not everything else. Having them in our repository
> makes this stuff pretty easy just by selecting what you want to JAR up.
Richard,
I added this as issue OSCAR-1 in JIRA and assigned it to myself.
Alex is troubleshooting JIRA notifications to this list.
Enrique
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
> I assume these will eventually be packaged and distributed by the OSGi
> Alliance. In the mean time I don't mind maintaining them in the
> Apache Oscar repo.
>
> Does it make sense to have our own copy? I figure we'll want to make
> them work in our build process(es).
I think we should have our own copies, because we will most likely want
to break them up and distribute them piecemeal any way. For example, we
don't want to include the entire osgi.jar file with the framework,
because most of the service definitions are not necessary. Likewise,
service implementations will likely only want to include their specific
service interfaces, not everything else. Having them in our repository
makes this stuff pretty easy just by selecting what you want to JAR up.
-> richard
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>Many people want to see Oscar thrive and succeed. The fact that Richard
>recognizes the fragility of his own position, should give him all possible
>kudos.
>
>
Yes, this is very much the case. I would like people to have my back on
implementing the core. I love to do it, but I cannot be solely
responsible all the time. I am an academic researcher, I actually need
to do research occasionally. :-)
>Richard is here to learn the Apache Way and make himself redundant in the
>longer-term :o) which is good for everyone involved. Several people at ASF
>is interested in becoming more involved in OSGi core development, learn the
>internal tricks and be part of the OSGi specification process. We can all do
>that by "leaving" ASF and join Richard, or he (and others) can join this
>large and joyful gang on well-proven grounds.
>
>
That is essentially my view too. If starting an Apache OSGi project
brings more people into the OSGi fold, then it seems like a good thing
to me.
>Also important note to remember in respect to contributions;
>Richard mentioned that we are talking Oscar Core, and not the various bundles
>that has been contributed via the Oscar Bundle Repository. Also, we are
>talking about Oscar 2.0 which "doesn't really exist", at least not in terms
>of OSGi specification, since the R4 spec is not out yet. So, theoretically we
>can't work on the codebase, since there is no specification to implement, or
>be more precise, only Richard can work on it and not show it publicly. IMHO,
>this is also an issue that we need to address to some extent. What can and
>can not be done?
>
>
Actually, that is partially correct. It is definitely true that non-OSGi
members cannot read the R4 spec at this point, since it is not released.
Thus, it would be difficult for anyone except members to implement R4
features (but this is probably true of many spec processes). Oscar 2.0
source, however, is publicly available; I just don't claim that it is
compatible with anything, it is just part of my experimentation with how
to extend R3.
>For the sake of perfection; Let's seek explicit grants from the individuals in
>question. After all, if you are willing to hand out a chunk of code over
>mail, the Apache ICLA shouldn't be much of a problem.
>
>
It certainly wouldn't be an issue if necessary, since there are probably
only about three people that would qualify.
>We will also need to see what comes out of the OSGi Alliance in respect to the
>R4 specification and licensing terms for independent implementations in
>general and ASF/ALv2 in particular.
>
>Further down the road I envision ASF, possibly together with Eclipse
>Foundation, stepping up to the OSGi Alliance, and "help them" become more
>OpenSource friendly, as these two implementations will probably take a lion's
>share of "the market". But this is way down the road.
>
>
I think this is happening slowly already.
-> richard
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Karl Pauls wrote:
>>>Also important note to remember in respect to contributions;
>>>Richard mentioned that we are talking Oscar Core, and not the various bundles
>>>that has been contributed via the Oscar Bundle Repository. Also, we are
>>>talking about Oscar 2.0 which "doesn't really exist",
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Exactly! This is a point that was never made but glad you caught on to
>>it. Oscar 2.0 source is not at ObjectWeb!
>>
>>
>
>It is from the alpha page (and for some time too):
>
>http://oscar.objectweb.org/oscar-alpha.html
>
>The direct link to all of the current alpha (including the source):
>
>http://oscar.objectweb.org/noscar.tar.gz
>
Yes, this is correct. I have made alpha snapshots available.
Alex was probably confused on this, since I mentioned that it wasn't
released on OW, but what I should have said is that there was "no
official" release of it on OW. My mistake.
I started Oscar 2.0 earlier this year as part of my experimentation for
ideas for OSGi R4.
-> richard
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Karl Pauls <ka...@gmail.com>.
> >Also important note to remember in respect to contributions;
> >Richard mentioned that we are talking Oscar Core, and not the various bundles
> >that has been contributed via the Oscar Bundle Repository. Also, we are
> >talking about Oscar 2.0 which "doesn't really exist",
> >
> Exactly! This is a point that was never made but glad you caught on to
> it. Oscar 2.0 source is not at ObjectWeb!
It is from the alpha page (and for some time too):
http://oscar.objectweb.org/oscar-alpha.html
The direct link to all of the current alpha (including the source):
http://oscar.objectweb.org/noscar.tar.gz
regards,
Karl
--
Karl Pauls
pauls@inf.fu-berlin.de
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>On Tuesday 26 July 2005 01:47, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>Roy, are you hinting that Incubation has not started, and may be turned down?
>Or is it talks towards graduation?
>
>
>
>>There is no doubt about it, if I stop working on
>>Oscar, it will die.
>>
>>
>
>Many people want to see Oscar thrive and succeed. The fact that Richard
>recognizes the fragility of his own position, should give him all possible
>kudos.
>
>
+1 ... is this not enough ...
Richard is in search of the very fabric that makes Apache what it is:
community.
>We can detect movement towards OSGi within the ASF from Cocoon, Directory, and
>possibly Maven. I suspect a few other projects are discussing the possibility
>too, especially if Oscar becomes a reality at the ASF.
>
>
>
Yes this is a momentus move that could unify java projects across the
board and make Apache a contender once again within the container space
after the Avalon debacle.
>Richard is here to learn the Apache Way and make himself redundant in the
>longer-term :o) which is good for everyone involved. Several people at ASF
>is interested in becoming more involved in OSGi core development, learn the
>internal tricks and be part of the OSGi specification process. We can all do
>that by "leaving" ASF and join Richard, or he (and others) can join this
>large and joyful gang on well-proven grounds.
>
>This is Incubation, if it doesn't work out the project can be terminated and
>continue elsewhere.
>
>
>
Very good points Niclas.
>Also important note to remember in respect to contributions;
>Richard mentioned that we are talking Oscar Core, and not the various bundles
>that has been contributed via the Oscar Bundle Repository. Also, we are
>talking about Oscar 2.0 which "doesn't really exist",
>
Exactly! This is a point that was never made but glad you caught on to
it. Oscar 2.0 source is not at ObjectWeb!
... snip ...
>Further down the road I envision ASF, possibly together with Eclipse
>Foundation, stepping up to the OSGi Alliance, and "help them" become more
>OpenSource friendly, as these two implementations will probably take a lion's
>share of "the market". But this is way down the road.
>
>
>
That's what we're all thinking.
Alex
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tuesday 26 July 2005 01:47, Richard S. Hall wrote:
Roy, are you hinting that Incubation has not started, and may be turned down?
Or is it talks towards graduation?
> There is no doubt about it, if I stop working on
> Oscar, it will die.
Many people want to see Oscar thrive and succeed. The fact that Richard
recognizes the fragility of his own position, should give him all possible
kudos.
We can detect movement towards OSGi within the ASF from Cocoon, Directory, and
possibly Maven. I suspect a few other projects are discussing the possibility
too, especially if Oscar becomes a reality at the ASF.
Richard is here to learn the Apache Way and make himself redundant in the
longer-term :o) which is good for everyone involved. Several people at ASF
is interested in becoming more involved in OSGi core development, learn the
internal tricks and be part of the OSGi specification process. We can all do
that by "leaving" ASF and join Richard, or he (and others) can join this
large and joyful gang on well-proven grounds.
This is Incubation, if it doesn't work out the project can be terminated and
continue elsewhere.
Also important note to remember in respect to contributions;
Richard mentioned that we are talking Oscar Core, and not the various bundles
that has been contributed via the Oscar Bundle Repository. Also, we are
talking about Oscar 2.0 which "doesn't really exist", at least not in terms
of OSGi specification, since the R4 spec is not out yet. So, theoretically we
can't work on the codebase, since there is no specification to implement, or
be more precise, only Richard can work on it and not show it publicly. IMHO,
this is also an issue that we need to address to some extent. What can and
can not be done?
For the sake of perfection; Let's seek explicit grants from the individuals in
question. After all, if you are willing to hand out a chunk of code over
mail, the Apache ICLA shouldn't be much of a problem.
We will also need to see what comes out of the OSGi Alliance in respect to the
R4 specification and licensing terms for independent implementations in
general and ASF/ALv2 in particular.
Further down the road I envision ASF, possibly together with Eclipse
Foundation, stepping up to the OSGi Alliance, and "help them" become more
OpenSource friendly, as these two implementations will probably take a lion's
share of "the market". But this is way down the road.
Cheers
Niclas
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> We can change the name. This is strictly and OSGi container effort
> here at the ASF where several people from Apache and elsewhere intend
> to contribute. It will not only be Richard. Those from KnoplerFish
> are also interested, maven, plexus, and Geronimo people like Alan have
> an interest in contributing. Oscar is just a name we picked.
The short answer to all of this is:
I agreed to join an Apache OSGi effort because I felt that the current
situation with Oscar was an uphill battle (me against Eclipse, KF
[Gatespace], JSR 277, etc.). In my view, something had to change to make
it so that I could continue to be involved with OSGi and open source,
but still be able to focus on other things.
Plain and simple, I want and need things to change. This is my choice.
Would I prefer to keep my project name? Of course, I think keeping the
name provides the best continuity and also it was my baby long before
anyone else even cared to claim it as their own. However, if a name
change is going to avoid a power struggle, then it is fine by me to
change the name. In the end, the facts are still the same.
-> richard
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> If the name stays as Oscar, then it is obviously a move.
>
>
We can change the name. This is strictly and OSGi container effort here
at the ASF where several people from Apache and elsewhere intend to
contribute. It will not only be Richard. Those from KnoplerFish are
also interested, maven, plexus, and Geronimo people like Alan have an
interest in contributing. Oscar is just a name we picked.
Secondly its not a move because the Oscar 2.0 source is not open
anywhere. Meaning from my understanding Richard has not committed the
code to ObjectWeb. Oscar 1.0 is at ObjectWeb.
>> If Alex had used any of the existing project proposals as a guide,
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
>> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/newproject.html
>>
>> then our requirements for accepting new projects would have been
>> clearer from the start.
>
>
>
> I am sorry, I don't know about that. I thought we did start with the
> Harmony project proposal as a guide.
Yes we used the Harmony project as a starting template.
Alex
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> The problem here is that ObjectWeb is a non-profit organization that
>> hosts a large number of project, a bit like the ASF. It's not like an
>> independent group (log4j, spamassasin, ibatis, etc) with a single
>> project that moves to the ASF for the community and legal oversight
>> it provides.
>
>
> You can also say that "SourceForge is a non-profit organization that
> hosts a large number of projects" and that "Oscar is an independent
> group with a single project that moves to the ASF for the community and
> legal oversight it provides." In the close to 1 year that I've been
> working with Oscar, I never got the impression that the Oscar-ObjectWeb
> relationship was anything more than infrastructure.
Hmm... comparing ObjectWeb and SourceForge isn't really fair!
Note that I'm in no way affiliated to ObjectWeb, but I happen to know a
few people there and they raised some issues when I mentioned the new
Oscar ASF project on my blog (see comments in [1]) and during private
discussions.
Now if they really have a problem with what's happening, it's up to them
to react. So let's move on!
Sylvain
[1] http://www.anyware-tech.com/blogs/sylvain/archives/000204.html
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> The problem here is that ObjectWeb is a non-profit organization that
> hosts a large number of project, a bit like the ASF. It's not like an
> independent group (log4j, spamassasin, ibatis, etc) with a single
> project that moves to the ASF for the community and legal oversight it
> provides.
You can also say that "SourceForge is a non-profit organization that
hosts a large number of projects" and that "Oscar is an independent
group with a single project that moves to the ASF for the community and
legal oversight it provides." In the close to 1 year that I've been
working with Oscar, I never got the impression that the Oscar-ObjectWeb
relationship was anything more than infrastructure.
Enrique
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 13:29 -0400, J Aaron Farr wrote:
> On 7/27/05, Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > The problem here is that ObjectWeb is a non-profit organization that
> > hosts a large number of project, a bit like the ASF. It's not like an
> > independent group (log4j, spamassasin, ibatis, etc) with a single
> > project that moves to the ASF for the community and legal oversight it
> > provides.
> >
> > So they feel like being robbed. That's the whole point.
>
> Do they?
>
> I spoke with Alex and my impression is that ObjectWeb is okay with the
> transition. If that is the case, then let's stick with 'Oscar'.
If the transition is amicable then I believe Richard's wish for
continuity should be respected for the sake of existing users and so
keep the name Oscar.
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason at maven.org
http://maven.apache.org
Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead.
-- Unknown
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
J Aaron Farr wrote:
>On 7/27/05, Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The problem here is that ObjectWeb is a non-profit organization that
>>hosts a large number of project, a bit like the ASF. It's not like an
>>independent group (log4j, spamassasin, ibatis, etc) with a single
>>project that moves to the ASF for the community and legal oversight it
>>provides.
>>
>>So they feel like being robbed. That's the whole point.
>>
>>
>
>Do they?
>
>I spoke with Alex and my impression is that ObjectWeb is okay with the
>transition. If that is the case, then let's stick with 'Oscar'.
>
I guess that depends on with whom you talk.
While everything happened quickly, it was definitely my desire to not
create an issue, which was a concern of mine from the beginning. I like
all of my colleagues at ObjectWeb and plan to continue to be involved in
the community.
-> richard
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by J Aaron Farr <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 7/27/05, Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org> wrote:
> The problem here is that ObjectWeb is a non-profit organization that
> hosts a large number of project, a bit like the ASF. It's not like an
> independent group (log4j, spamassasin, ibatis, etc) with a single
> project that moves to the ASF for the community and legal oversight it
> provides.
>
> So they feel like being robbed. That's the whole point.
Do they?
I spoke with Alex and my impression is that ObjectWeb is okay with the
transition. If that is the case, then let's stick with 'Oscar'.
--
jaaron
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>On Wednesday 27 July 2005 02:04, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>
>>Le 26 juil. 05, à 17:52, Richard S. Hall a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>...In the end, I think it serves people less to have a new project
>>>with unclear history and a dead project called Oscar, than to just
>>>have a single project called Oscar....
>>>
>>>
>>Agreed, saying "Oscar 1 was hosted at ObjectWeb and newer releases are
>>hosted at the ASF" is clear enough IMHO.
>>
>>
>
>Hasn't there been similar transfers in the past. IIRC, Log4J was Log4J long
>time before it got to ASF.
>
>
The problem here is that ObjectWeb is a non-profit organization that
hosts a large number of project, a bit like the ASF. It's not like an
independent group (log4j, spamassasin, ibatis, etc) with a single
project that moves to the ASF for the community and legal oversight it
provides.
So they feel like being robbed. That's the whole point.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 02:04, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Le 26 juil. 05, à 17:52, Richard S. Hall a écrit :
> > ...In the end, I think it serves people less to have a new project
> > with unclear history and a dead project called Oscar, than to just
> > have a single project called Oscar....
>
> Agreed, saying "Oscar 1 was hosted at ObjectWeb and newer releases are
> hosted at the ASF" is clear enough IMHO.
Hasn't there been similar transfers in the past. IIRC, Log4J was Log4J long
time before it got to ASF.
I am in favour of keeping Oscar as a name;
* Continuum
* Short and easy to pronounce.
* Acronym-friendly ;o)
Will the Academy Awards be an issue?? They are in "entertainment", so I think
not...IANAL.
Cheers
Niclas
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> J Aaron Farr wrote:
>
>> If that's the case, then a name change as Alex suggested may be in
>> order. It will avoid this type of confusion.
>>
>
> But, from my perspective, it will just create another source of
> confusion, which is for the user community of Oscar and OSGi
> frameworks in general. I am more concerned with the users than the
> politics. In the end, I think it serves people less to have a new
> project with unclear history and a dead project called Oscar, than to
> just have a single project called Oscar.
>
> Regardless, we can change the name if that is the consensus.
I'm fine with the name. I just don't want to deal with the politics.
If the amount of energy required to keep the name is overwhelming for
this community then I understand changing the name. I think Richard is
right about maintaining continuity. The Oscar name is the best way to
go. Let's just leave it at that.
Alex
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> J Aaron Farr wrote:
>
>> If that's the case, then a name change as Alex suggested may be in
>> order. It will avoid this type of confusion.
>>
>
> But, from my perspective, it will just create another source of
> confusion, which is for the user community of Oscar and OSGi
> frameworks in general. I am more concerned with the users than the
> politics. In the end, I think it serves people less to have a new
> project with unclear history and a dead project called Oscar, than to
> just have a single project called Oscar.
>
> Regardless, we can change the name if that is the consensus.
I'm fine with the name. I just don't want to deal with the politics.
If the amount of enery required to keep the name is overwhelming for
this community then I understand changing the name. I think Richard is
right about maintaining continuity. The Oscar name is the best way to
go. Let's just leave it at that.
Alex
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le 26 juil. 05, à 17:52, Richard S. Hall a écrit :
> ...In the end, I think it serves people less to have a new project
> with unclear history and a dead project called Oscar, than to just
> have a single project called Oscar....
Agreed, saying "Oscar 1 was hosted at ObjectWeb and newer releases are
hosted at the ASF" is clear enough IMHO.
Still, having some kind of official statement from ObjectWeb,
indicating that they are ok with the move, would help avoid any
misunderstandings. Maybe a statement could be added to the project
proposal if that's allowed by the incubator rules?
-Bertrand
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Timur Mehrvarz <ti...@web.de>.
On 26. Jul 2005, at 17:52, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> J Aaron Farr wrote:
>
>> If that's the case, then a name change as Alex suggested may be in
>> order. It will avoid this type of confusion.
>>
>
> But, from my perspective, it will just create another source of
> confusion, which is for the user community of Oscar and OSGi
> frameworks in general. I am more concerned with the users than the
> politics. In the end, I think it serves people less to have a new
> project with unclear history and a dead project called Oscar, than
> to just have a single project called Oscar.
>
I agree with this.
People have gotten comfortable with Oscar. They know Oscar is good
stuff. It would not be very smart to change the project name.
Timur
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
J Aaron Farr wrote:
>If that's the case, then a name change as Alex suggested may be in
>order. It will avoid this type of confusion.
>
But, from my perspective, it will just create another source of
confusion, which is for the user community of Oscar and OSGi frameworks
in general. I am more concerned with the users than the politics. In the
end, I think it serves people less to have a new project with unclear
history and a dead project called Oscar, than to just have a single
project called Oscar.
Regardless, we can change the name if that is the consensus.
-> richard
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by J Aaron Farr <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 7/26/05, Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > I wouldn't use the word "abandoning", since my plan was to support
> > Oscar 1.0.x for the time being and I still plan to be involved in the
> > ObjectWeb community.
> >
> > Otherwise, yes, I said that I would be interested in participating in
> > an Apache OSGi project and that I could donate my code to seed the
> > project.
>
> Ditto. The choice of words although subtle make a big difference here.
Okay, thanks for the clarifications.
If that's the case, then a name change as Alex suggested may be in
order. It will avoid this type of confusion.
--
jaaron
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> J Aaron Farr wrote:
>
>> Back to Roy's concerns though, is ObjectWeb aware of this "move"? My
>> impression of these discussions is that the core contributor of Oscar
>> is essentially abandoning the ObjectWeb Oscar 1.0 project and moving
>> the 2.0 to here. Is this correct?
>>
>
> I wouldn't use the word "abandoning", since my plan was to support
> Oscar 1.0.x for the time being and I still plan to be involved in the
> ObjectWeb community.
>
> Otherwise, yes, I said that I would be interested in participating in
> an Apache OSGi project and that I could donate my code to seed the
> project.
Ditto. The choice of words although subtle make a big difference here.
Alex
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
J Aaron Farr wrote:
>Back to Roy's concerns though, is ObjectWeb aware of this "move"? My
>impression of these discussions is that the core contributor of Oscar
>is essentially abandoning the ObjectWeb Oscar 1.0 project and moving
>the 2.0 to here. Is this correct?
>
I wouldn't use the word "abandoning", since my plan was to support Oscar
1.0.x for the time being and I still plan to be involved in the
ObjectWeb community.
Otherwise, yes, I said that I would be interested in participating in an
Apache OSGi project and that I could donate my code to seed the project.
-> richard
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by J Aaron Farr <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 7/26/05, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > The more sponsoring members the better. Looks like you have already
> > been added to the proposal.
>
> Then please add me too :-)
One more "me too!" I'm very interested in an OSGi project here in the ASF.
Back to Roy's concerns though, is ObjectWeb aware of this "move"? My
impression of these discussions is that the core contributor of Oscar
is essentially abandoning the ObjectWeb Oscar 1.0 project and moving
the 2.0 to here. Is this correct?
--
jaaron
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Upayavira wrote:
>
>> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>>> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The more sponsoring members the better. Looks like you have already
>>> been added to the proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then please add me too :-)
>
>
> Could you provide your full name?
That is his full name. He is already a Cocoon committer so adding him
should be easy.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Upayavira wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> Upayavira wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Le 25 juil. 05, à 19:47, Richard S. Hall a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...My discussion with various Apache people led to my
>>>>>> understanding that there was interest in starting an Apache OSGi
>>>>>> project. I agreed to participate....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And there is indeed a *lot* of interest. The Cocoon team is
>>>>> looking at OSGI very seriously, we have implemented some
>>>>> OSGI-based stuff already, and for us the timing couldn't be better
>>>>> for an OSGI implementation to come to the ASF, as our main concern
>>>>> was having to depend on an "external" library.
>>>>>
>>>>> Judging from several conversations last week at ApacheCon, I think
>>>>> many of us are very thankful for your decision to continue here
>>>>> the work that you started with Oscar. Some things might need
>>>>> clarification, but I'm sure many people at the ASF are eager to
>>>>> see this moving forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> If having more sponsoring members makes a difference, I'd be happy
>>>>> to be added to the list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The more sponsoring members the better. Looks like you have
>>>> already been added to the proposal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then please add me too :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Could you provide your full name?
>
>
> Upayavira is my full name :-)
>
> It is my Buddhist name, and is the name I use with all Apache
> dealings. You'll see me in members.txt.
Sorry Upayavira excuse my Western bias here. I presumed you had a
lastname. Will not happen again. I added you to the proposal here:
https://svn.safehaus.org/repos/sandbox/proposals/osgi
Incidentally I should move the proposal into the repository at the top
level. Let me do that now. This way anyone with commit rights can
update it. This is where it belongs anyway.
Thanks,
Alex
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Upayavira wrote:
>
>> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>>> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 25 juil. 05, à 19:47, Richard S. Hall a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> ...My discussion with various Apache people led to my understanding
>>>>> that there was interest in starting an Apache OSGi project. I
>>>>> agreed to participate....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And there is indeed a *lot* of interest. The Cocoon team is looking
>>>> at OSGI very seriously, we have implemented some OSGI-based stuff
>>>> already, and for us the timing couldn't be better for an OSGI
>>>> implementation to come to the ASF, as our main concern was having to
>>>> depend on an "external" library.
>>>>
>>>> Judging from several conversations last week at ApacheCon, I think
>>>> many of us are very thankful for your decision to continue here the
>>>> work that you started with Oscar. Some things might need
>>>> clarification, but I'm sure many people at the ASF are eager to see
>>>> this moving forward.
>>>>
>>>> If having more sponsoring members makes a difference, I'd be happy
>>>> to be added to the list.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The more sponsoring members the better. Looks like you have already
>>> been added to the proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then please add me too :-)
>
>
> Could you provide your full name?
Upayavira is my full name :-)
It is my Buddhist name, and is the name I use with all Apache dealings.
You'll see me in members.txt.
Regards, Upayavira
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Upayavira wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>
>>> Le 25 juil. 05, à 19:47, Richard S. Hall a écrit :
>>>
>>>> ...My discussion with various Apache people led to my understanding
>>>> that there was interest in starting an Apache OSGi project. I
>>>> agreed to participate....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And there is indeed a *lot* of interest. The Cocoon team is looking
>>> at OSGI very seriously, we have implemented some OSGI-based stuff
>>> already, and for us the timing couldn't be better for an OSGI
>>> implementation to come to the ASF, as our main concern was having to
>>> depend on an "external" library.
>>>
>>> Judging from several conversations last week at ApacheCon, I think
>>> many of us are very thankful for your decision to continue here the
>>> work that you started with Oscar. Some things might need
>>> clarification, but I'm sure many people at the ASF are eager to see
>>> this moving forward.
>>>
>>> If having more sponsoring members makes a difference, I'd be happy
>>> to be added to the list.
>>
>>
>>
>> The more sponsoring members the better. Looks like you have already
>> been added to the proposal.
>
>
> Then please add me too :-)
Could you provide your full name?
Thanks,
Alex
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> Le 25 juil. 05, à 19:47, Richard S. Hall a écrit :
>>
>>> ...My discussion with various Apache people led to my understanding
>>> that there was interest in starting an Apache OSGi project. I agreed
>>> to participate....
>>
>>
>>
>> And there is indeed a *lot* of interest. The Cocoon team is looking at
>> OSGI very seriously, we have implemented some OSGI-based stuff
>> already, and for us the timing couldn't be better for an OSGI
>> implementation to come to the ASF, as our main concern was having to
>> depend on an "external" library.
>>
>> Judging from several conversations last week at ApacheCon, I think
>> many of us are very thankful for your decision to continue here the
>> work that you started with Oscar. Some things might need
>> clarification, but I'm sure many people at the ASF are eager to see
>> this moving forward.
>>
>> If having more sponsoring members makes a difference, I'd be happy to
>> be added to the list.
>
>
> The more sponsoring members the better. Looks like you have already
> been added to the proposal.
Then please add me too :-)
Regards, Upayavira
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Le 25 juil. 05, à 19:47, Richard S. Hall a écrit :
>
>> ...My discussion with various Apache people led to my understanding
>> that there was interest in starting an Apache OSGi project. I agreed
>> to participate....
>
>
> And there is indeed a *lot* of interest. The Cocoon team is looking at
> OSGI very seriously, we have implemented some OSGI-based stuff
> already, and for us the timing couldn't be better for an OSGI
> implementation to come to the ASF, as our main concern was having to
> depend on an "external" library.
>
> Judging from several conversations last week at ApacheCon, I think
> many of us are very thankful for your decision to continue here the
> work that you started with Oscar. Some things might need
> clarification, but I'm sure many people at the ASF are eager to see
> this moving forward.
>
> If having more sponsoring members makes a difference, I'd be happy to
> be added to the list.
The more sponsoring members the better. Looks like you have already
been added to the proposal.
Thanks,
Alex
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> However, Apache is about healthy developer communities, and as Niclas
> said, you will have to make yourself redundant by accepting new core
> developers and helping them to become fluent with the internals of
> your baby so that it becomes their baby too.
>
> I'm stating this to be sure that you're well aware of this. Apache is
> not a better place for you to work. It's a place where a healthy and
> diverse developer community will have to emerge for a project to exit
> incubation.
My goal is to become less necessary. Ultimately, as an academic
researcher, I have to do more than just implement a spec.
However, I will always care about the direction that it takes. My main
focuses with Oscar have always been to keep it simple and very easy to
use, but at the same time use it as a platform to find the best approach
for creating such a platform and possibly influencing the future
directions of the spec or other such platforms. These issues are key
parts of the Oscar philosophy.
I am not content to merely implement the spec. :-)
The fantasy situation is that the project gains contributors for all of
the pieces that I don't want to implement and I retain the fun parts
that I love to implement. Of course, I realize that this won't be the
case. :-)
-> richard
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Bertand,
>
> Thank you for your support (of me and the project).
>
> My goals have always been to do good work and to get OSGi and the work
> I do around it in front of as many people as possible.
>
> My work with OSGi started in December of 2000 while I was an assistant
> professor in Berlin; back then very few people cared about what I was
> doing...except long-time user Rob Walker. :-)
>
> Back in the early days I was just releasing Oscar on my own web page,
> but eventually moved Source Forge in July 2001. I ended up moving to
> France to continue my work on Oscar and around OSGi and ended up
> moving Oscar to ObjectWeb in February of 2004. I had moved home from
> France last year and for most of the past year I funded my work on
> Oscar and in the OSGi Alliance out of my personal savings. Now I am
> back working half time in France, so I am back to only partially
> funding my work. :-) I really care about this stuff.
>
> I am excited by the possibility of getting a chance to keep the
> momentum moving forward. The interest expressed by the Apache
> community since the announcement of the project has been practically
> overwhelming, let alone the Oscar community and OSGi community at large.
Nice intro that shows how you are committed to OSGi and Oscar (and BTW
I'm in France too).
However, Apache is about healthy developer communities, and as Niclas
said, you will have to make yourself redundant by accepting new core
developers and helping them to become fluent with the internals of your
baby so that it becomes their baby too.
I'm stating this to be sure that you're well aware of this. Apache is
not a better place for you to work. It's a place where a healthy and
diverse developer community will have to emerge for a project to exit
incubation.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Bertand,
Thank you for your support (of me and the project).
My goals have always been to do good work and to get OSGi and the work I
do around it in front of as many people as possible.
My work with OSGi started in December of 2000 while I was an assistant
professor in Berlin; back then very few people cared about what I was
doing...except long-time user Rob Walker. :-)
Back in the early days I was just releasing Oscar on my own web page,
but eventually moved Source Forge in July 2001. I ended up moving to
France to continue my work on Oscar and around OSGi and ended up moving
Oscar to ObjectWeb in February of 2004. I had moved home from France
last year and for most of the past year I funded my work on Oscar and in
the OSGi Alliance out of my personal savings. Now I am back working half
time in France, so I am back to only partially funding my work. :-) I
really care about this stuff.
I am excited by the possibility of getting a chance to keep the momentum
moving forward. The interest expressed by the Apache community since the
announcement of the project has been practically overwhelming, let alone
the Oscar community and OSGi community at large.
Thanks again.
-> richard
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Le 25 juil. 05, à 19:47, Richard S. Hall a écrit :
>
>> ...My discussion with various Apache people led to my understanding
>> that there was interest in starting an Apache OSGi project. I agreed
>> to participate....
>
>
> And there is indeed a *lot* of interest. The Cocoon team is looking at
> OSGI very seriously, we have implemented some OSGI-based stuff
> already, and for us the timing couldn't be better for an OSGI
> implementation to come to the ASF, as our main concern was having to
> depend on an "external" library.
>
> Judging from several conversations last week at ApacheCon, I think
> many of us are very thankful for your decision to continue here the
> work that you started with Oscar. Some things might need
> clarification, but I'm sure many people at the ASF are eager to see
> this moving forward.
>
> If having more sponsoring members makes a difference, I'd be happy to
> be added to the list.
>
> -Bertrand
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le 25 juil. 05, à 19:47, Richard S. Hall a écrit :
> ...My discussion with various Apache people led to my understanding
> that there was interest in starting an Apache OSGi project. I agreed
> to participate....
And there is indeed a *lot* of interest. The Cocoon team is looking at
OSGI very seriously, we have implemented some OSGI-based stuff already,
and for us the timing couldn't be better for an OSGI implementation to
come to the ASF, as our main concern was having to depend on an
"external" library.
Judging from several conversations last week at ApacheCon, I think many
of us are very thankful for your decision to continue here the work
that you started with Oscar. Some things might need clarification, but
I'm sure many people at the ASF are eager to see this moving forward.
If having more sponsoring members makes a difference, I'd be happy to
be added to the list.
-Bertrand
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> If the name stays as Oscar, then it is obviously a move.
Certainly one way to look at. Another is reuse. :-)
My main concern was continuity for existing users if the source code is
seeded with Oscar code. There is no doubt about it, if I stop working on
Oscar, it will die. For example, earlier this morning I was just
renaming the packages so that Oscar is no longer a package name...does
this still constitute a move? It is hard to say.
My discussion with various Apache people led to my understanding that
there was interest in starting an Apache OSGi project. I agreed to
participate. Since I am Oscar, if I move to a new Apache OSGi project,
then so does it to a very large degree.
> The website says
>
> Other contributors
>
> * Rob Walker from Ascert.
> * Stephane Frenot from l'INSA de Lyon.
> * Humberto Cervantes from Universidad Autonoma
> Metropolitana-Iztapalapa.
> * Didier Donsez from LSR-IMAG.
> * Stephane Chomat from LSR-IMAG.
> * Michel D'Hooge from Trialog.
>
> and the changes file at
>
> http://oscar.objectweb.org/changes.html
>
> includes quite a few additional contributors. Are you saying that
> none of those people contributed anything significant enough to be
> separately copyrightable as a derivative or new work? Or are you
> saying that you have a signed document from all significant
> contributors that assigns copyright to you?
Most of the contributions are for bundles, which are not part of the
core. I am not granting bundles. Many of the people listed are
supporters more so than contributors.
If someone pointed out a bug fix or tracked it down a bug in the Oscar
source, I gave them credit. However, all bug fixes were implemented by
me and committed by me. I am the only person with commit rights to
Oscar's code.
There could possibly be one exception to this, which is the code for the
LDAP parser/evaluator which was originally written for me by my former
PhD advisor, Dennis Heimbigner, and has been in Oscar since the
beginning. I know that he has no issues with it.
The only other code that even comes close to a contribution is code
given to me by Erik Wistrand for handling HTTPS, but this is a minor
chunk of code and he actually gave it to me in the context of OBR, which
I just reused it for Oscar, since he told me to use it any way that I
wanted.
So, yes, I am saying that there are no significant contributions by
anyone else other than myself or from people that have granted me
control of the code.
> That simply isn't sufficient justification. Apache projects can use
> BSD licensed code from anywhere. BSD-licensed projects only need to
> come to apache.org when the existing home is either unfriendly to
> collaborative development (e.g., preventing new contributors from
> joining in the project) or insufficiently neutral to support the
> potential set of contributors (e.g., requiring a nonprofit foundation
> environment). There may be other reasons, but those are the ones
> we normally see.
That was my motivation. It, along with a litany of other motivations are
part of the proposal. I think the proposal stands on its own.
> If Alex had used any of the existing project proposals as a guide,
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/newproject.html
>
> then our requirements for accepting new projects would have been
> clearer from the start.
I am sorry, I don't know about that. I thought we did start with the
Harmony project proposal as a guide.
-> richard
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 25, 2005, at 8:31 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> I can't speak for everyone involved, but would have assumed that
> everyone knew that Oscar was hosted on ObjectWeb. I cannot fully claim
> to be aware of what should or should not go into a project proposal.
>
> Further, the issue here isn't necessarily a "move" of Oscar as much as
> a seeding with Oscar code. Out of my own interest in keeping the Oscar
> legacy in tact, I would prefer to think of it as a move.
If the name stays as Oscar, then it is obviously a move.
> I am the only contributor to the Oscar core code. My work on Oscar
> long pre-dates my involvement with ObjectWeb.
The website says
Other contributors
* Rob Walker from Ascert.
* Stephane Frenot from l'INSA de Lyon.
* Humberto Cervantes from Universidad Autonoma
Metropolitana-Iztapalapa.
* Didier Donsez from LSR-IMAG.
* Stephane Chomat from LSR-IMAG.
* Michel D'Hooge from Trialog.
and the changes file at
http://oscar.objectweb.org/changes.html
includes quite a few additional contributors. Are you saying that
none of those people contributed anything significant enough to be
separately copyrightable as a derivative or new work? Or are you
saying that you have a signed document from all significant
contributors that assigns copyright to you?
> The main reason to start an Apache OSGi project is to further the
> support of OSGi technology. Apache carries more weight than ObjectWeb
> and this will be helpful in influencing the future, such as JSR 277.
That simply isn't sufficient justification. Apache projects can use
BSD licensed code from anywhere. BSD-licensed projects only need to
come to apache.org when the existing home is either unfriendly to
collaborative development (e.g., preventing new contributors from
joining in the project) or insufficiently neutral to support the
potential set of contributors (e.g., requiring a nonprofit foundation
environment). There may be other reasons, but those are the ones
we normally see.
If Alex had used any of the existing project proposals as a guide,
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/newproject.html
then our requirements for accepting new projects would have been
clearer from the start.
....Roy
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
I can't speak for everyone involved, but would have assumed that
everyone knew that Oscar was hosted on ObjectWeb. I cannot fully claim
to be aware of what should or should not go into a project proposal.
Further, the issue here isn't necessarily a "move" of Oscar as much as a
seeding with Oscar code. Out of my own interest in keeping the Oscar
legacy in tact, I would prefer to think of it as a move.
I am the only contributor to the Oscar core code. My work on Oscar long
pre-dates my involvement with ObjectWeb.
The main reason to start an Apache OSGi project is to further the
support of OSGi technology. Apache carries more weight than ObjectWeb
and this will be helpful in influencing the future, such as JSR 277.
-> richard
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Umm, it has been brought to my attention that the incubator
> proposal completely failed to mention that the Oscar project
> already exists at ObjectWeb [1] and has been developed there
> for over a year [2].
>
> [1] http://oscar.objectweb.org/
> [2] http://mail-archive.objectweb.org/oscar/index.html
>
> Don't you think that might have been important information
> to point out in the proposal, considering that it impacts
> both our relationship with ObjectWeb and the nature of the
> intellectual property licenses that will be required?
>
> Why is oscar moving from ObjectWeb to Apache?
> Have all of the contributors agreed to relicensing the code?
>
> ....Roy
>
>
>
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
Umm, it has been brought to my attention that the incubator
proposal completely failed to mention that the Oscar project
already exists at ObjectWeb [1] and has been developed there
for over a year [2].
[1] http://oscar.objectweb.org/
[2] http://mail-archive.objectweb.org/oscar/index.html
Don't you think that might have been important information
to point out in the proposal, considering that it impacts
both our relationship with ObjectWeb and the nature of the
intellectual property licenses that will be required?
Why is oscar moving from ObjectWeb to Apache?
Have all of the contributors agreed to relicensing the code?
....Roy
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
Mark Wielaard wrote:
> You might want to coordinate on this with Eclipse.
> They had similar concerns about some OSGi code. See:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=90052
Hi, Mark,
Thanks for digging the Eclipse thread up.
The EPL'd OSGi source files are in Eclipse' viewcvs at:
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.osgi/osgi/src/org/osgi/
I emailed BJ, who's the OSGi CTO and he says:
"Note: These are not the final R4 files nor are they the complete set.
But they do have all the files needed to implement an R4 framework. We
are still finalizing R4 so these classes will change but the changes
will be mostly javadoc improvements and the potential addition of new
methods."
I assume these will eventually be packaged and distributed by the OSGi
Alliance. In the mean time I don't mind maintaining them in the Apache
Oscar repo.
Does it make sense to have our own copy? I figure we'll want to make
them work in our build process(es).
Enrique
Re: ability to extend oscar beyond osgi spec
Posted by peter royal <pr...@apache.org>.
On Jul 21, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> I don't thing changing/extending what's in the org.osgi package a
> desirable thing. What can be done however, is to have our own
> service definitions that do extend the standard one to provide
> additional features. Knopflefish does this for example [1]. In that
> case, you don't modify the specification but provide optional
> additional features to the standard one. And users, by importing a
> implementation-specific package, know that they become dependent on
> this particular implementation.
Ah, perfect.
That's exactly the scenario I was thinking of, and just wanted to
make sure the OSGi spec didn't disallow it.
-pete
--
peter royal
Re: ability to extend oscar beyond osgi spec
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
peter royal wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2005, at 12:50 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
>> You might want to coordinate on this with Eclipse.
>> They had similar concerns about some OSGi code. See:
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=90052
>>
>> One of the comments in that bugs says:
>>
>> To be specific, OSGi now makes a clear distinction between the
>> specification PDF document ("specification") and the java
>> source
>> files which contain the OSGi API typed in from the
>> specification
>> ("companion code").
>>
>> OSGi does not consider the companion code to be the
>> specification and thus has agreed to license the companion code
>> under EPL. The specification itself is available under a new
>> specification license which freely allows distribution and
>> implementation of the specification, but all rights to modify
>> the specification are retained by OSGi. This is to prevent
>> forking the specification.
>
>
> Would this preclude extending oscar beyond the OSGi specification?
I don't thing changing/extending what's in the org.osgi package a
desirable thing. What can be done however, is to have our own service
definitions that do extend the standard one to provide additional
features. Knopflefish does this for example [1]. In that case, you don't
modify the specification but provide optional additional features to the
standard one. And users, by importing a implementation-specific package,
know that they become dependent on this particular implementation.
Sylvain
[1]
http://www.knopflerfish.org/releases/1.3.3/javadoc/org/knopflerfish/service/log/LogService.html
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
ability to extend oscar beyond osgi spec
Posted by peter royal <pr...@apache.org>.
On Jul 21, 2005, at 12:50 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> You might want to coordinate on this with Eclipse.
> They had similar concerns about some OSGi code. See:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=90052
>
> One of the comments in that bugs says:
>
> To be specific, OSGi now makes a clear distinction between the
> specification PDF document ("specification") and the java
> source
> files which contain the OSGi API typed in from the
> specification
> ("companion code").
>
> OSGi does not consider the companion code to be the
> specification and thus has agreed to license the companion
> code
> under EPL. The specification itself is available under a new
> specification license which freely allows distribution and
> implementation of the specification, but all rights to modify
> the specification are retained by OSGi. This is to prevent
> forking the specification.
Would this preclude extending oscar beyond the OSGi specification?
-pete
--
peter royal
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Mark Wielaard <ma...@klomp.org>.
Hi,
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 11:45 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > The license to review is the one in the specification documentation,
> > which in essence says nothing other than the fact that you are NOT
> > indemnified against IP claims, which is standard CYA by the OSGi
> > Alliance.
>
> It says nothing. It doesn't even provide a license to copy or make
> derivative work. There is zero license there, only a disclaimer.
You might want to coordinate on this with Eclipse.
They had similar concerns about some OSGi code. See:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=90052
One of the comments in that bugs says:
To be specific, OSGi now makes a clear distinction between the
specification PDF document ("specification") and the java source
files which contain the OSGi API typed in from the specification
("companion code").
OSGi does not consider the companion code to be the
specification and thus has agreed to license the companion code
under EPL. The specification itself is available under a new
specification license which freely allows distribution and
implementation of the specification, but all rights to modify
the specification are retained by OSGi. This is to prevent
forking the specification.
Hope that helps. The bug also has email addresses of some contact people
if you need them for more clarifications. I am not sure if the current
license on the osgi website is already this new license this comment
talks about, or if they still have to update the site to clarify this.
Cheers,
Mark
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 15, 2005, at 11:34 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> The OSGi community appears, from their own materials, to be a
>> closed-circle consortium with a RAND-based cross-licensing
>> agreement to members, in which OSGi's ability to license invented
>> materials is limited to licenses to other members.
>>
>> Could you please explain how OSGi intends to comply with the
>> Apache contributor license agreement at
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>>
>> Will all of the OSGi members be signing that agreement, or at
>> least those with IP claims on the code/specifications?
>>
> As usual Roy some very good questions. At this point (need to
> research this further) we realize OSGi is a closed Alliance. However
> note that our goal is not to become a member of OSGi but rather to
> implement a specification. OSGi specifications are free to implement.
> Like the RFC process the specifications are crafted by a closed
> group. However anyone can implement these specifications.
I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
> The license to review is the one in the specification documentation,
> which in essence says nothing other than the fact that you are NOT
> indemnified against IP claims, which is standard CYA by the OSGi
> Alliance.
It says nothing. It doesn't even provide a license to copy or make
derivative work. There is zero license there, only a disclaimer.
> The OSGi Alliance makes member companies declare up front any IP
> claims, and none of them have. Leaving the specification license as a
> CYA. Also please note that Oscar and KnoplerFish are OSS
> implementations of that specification that have been around for 5
> years now. This suggests there are no IP restrictions on implementing
> the specification.
No, it doesn't suggest anything of the sort. That's like saying
that it is legal in California to drive 90 miles per hour just
because you saw a police car drive that fast.
> Also note Roy that our intention is to unify the Oscar and
> KnoplerFish communities with a single effort at the ASF. These
> communities already exist with existing code bases. Our mission is to
> bring this all together in one place.
Great, no problem there. However, please be aware that this project
will not leave incubation until every single contributor of IP has
executed a CLA with the ASF, just like every other incubated project.
Unlike the others, you have a screwball situation here because the
OSGi member agreement does not allow OSGi to license the technology
to non-members. The only rights that OSGi can license to the ASF is
to technology that their own employees created alone. They will
have to get permission from the members involved in creating the
rest of the technology in order to for us to redistribute it.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2005, at 4:59 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> The OSGi community at large, several Apache committers and members
>> would like to start a new project based on the existing Oscar OSGi
>> Container which Richard Hall is graciously willing to donate.
>
>
> The OSGi community appears, from their own materials, to be a
> closed-circle consortium with a RAND-based cross-licensing
> agreement to members, in which OSGi's ability to license invented
> materials is limited to licenses to other members.
>
> Could you please explain how OSGi intends to comply with the
> Apache contributor license agreement at
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>
> Will all of the OSGi members be signing that agreement, or at
> least those with IP claims on the code/specifications?
>
As usual Roy some very good questions. At this point (need to research
this further) we realize OSGi is a closed Alliance. However note that
our goal is not to become a member of OSGi but rather to implement a
specification. OSGi specifications are free to implement. Like the RFC
process the specifications are crafted by a closed group. However
anyone can implement these specifications.
The license to review is the one in the specification documentation,
which in essence says nothing other than the fact that you are NOT
indemnified against IP claims, which is standard CYA by the OSGi
Alliance. The OSGi Alliance makes member companies declare up front any
IP claims, and none of them have. Leaving the specification license as
a CYA. Also please note that Oscar and KnoplerFish are OSS
implementations of that specification that have been around for 5 years
now. This suggests there are no IP restrictions on implementing the
specification. Also note Roy that our intention is to unify the Oscar
and KnoplerFish communities with a single effort at the ASF. These
communities already exist with existing code bases. Our mission is to
bring this all together in one place.
Regards,
Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 14, 2005, at 4:59 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> The OSGi community at large, several Apache committers and members
> would like to start a new project based on the existing Oscar OSGi
> Container which Richard Hall is graciously willing to donate.
The OSGi community appears, from their own materials, to be a
closed-circle consortium with a RAND-based cross-licensing
agreement to members, in which OSGi's ability to license invented
materials is limited to licenses to other members.
Could you please explain how OSGi intends to comply with the
Apache contributor license agreement at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
Will all of the OSGi members be signing that agreement, or at
least those with IP claims on the code/specifications?
Cheers,
Roy T. Fielding <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
Chief Scientist, Day Software <http://www.day.com/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Friday 15 July 2005 10:07, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
>>Here's my +1
>
>
> My non-binding, big +1 as well.
and here another non-binding +1
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Friday 15 July 2005 10:07, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Here's my +1
My non-binding, big +1 as well.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Here's my +1
-- dims
On 7/14/05, Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The OSGi community at large, several Apache committers and members would
> like to start a new project based on the existing Oscar OSGi Container
> which Richard Hall is graciously willing to donate. Without further
> commentary we present to you the proposal for the Oscar project:
>
> Project Oscar
> ==========
>
>
> Motivation
> ----------
>
> Unlike .NET, which requires that applications are packaged as assemblies
> with explicit dependencies among them, the Java platform does not offer
> sufficient support for modularity. This lack of support complicates not
> only Java application development, but also subsequent deployment and
> administration. Many of the complications result from the fact that
> every project that requires some form of modularity ends up inventing
> their own ClassLoader-based approach for solving their needs. This
> phenomenon is evident in application servers, integrated development
> environments, and any component- or plugin-oriented systems. The OSGi
> framework defined by the OSGi Alliance has a long history of addressing
> these types of issues and the imminent release of version R4 of the OSGi
> specification is set to move the OSGi framework even further along
> this path.
>
> The recent adoption of OSGi technology as the modularity layer of the
> Eclipse Rich Client Platform (RCP) underscores the inroads that OSGi
> technology has made. Further, the announcement of JSR 277 verifies that
> demand for modularity in Java has reached a critical point.
>
> This project can serve the greater Java open source community by
> providing immediate modularity support for Java applications today
> through the OSGi framework, creating a unifying community around open
> source OSGi technology, and tracking and participating in the progression
> of JSR 277.
>
>
> Proposal
> --------
>
> We propose the creation of a new Apache project, Oscar, that will achieve
> the following goals :
>
> 1) create a compliant, independent implementation of the OSGi R4 core
> framework with framework-dependent services under the Apache License,
> Version 2.0.
>
> 2) unify resources from the OSGi community to implement, document, maintain,
> and support standard OSGi R4 services.
>
> 3) provide a focal point for the OSGi community to develop interfaces, APIs,
> and other common needs not fully specified by the OSGi R4 specification,
> such as store interfaces, aspects of the runtime container's packaging
> and configuration, and the design and behavior of bundle repositories.
>
> 4) provide a focal point for the open-source OSGi community to develop next
> generation enhancements to the core framework and act as a conduit for
> the open-source community to the OSGi Alliance.
>
> 5) evangelize the OSGi Service Platform within Apache and provide documentation
> and support for successful container migrations.
>
>
> Starting Participants
> ---------------------
>
> We propose that the following people are considered the starting participants.
> We hope to start with a diverse cross-section of the community and preserve
> this as we grow. The information in parenthesis indicates other community
> participation or relevant experiences of that individual.
>
> These individuals have expressed an interest in participating in the
> architecture and design work and in participating as committers for the
> Apache-licensed implementation :
>
> Richard Hall (OSGi Alliance (Invited Researcher) and Founder of the Oscar project)
> Alex Karasulu (Apache)
> Enrique Rodriguez (Apache)
> Trustin Lee (Apache)
>
> These individuals will participate as Incubator Mentors :
>
> Alex Karasulu (Apache)
>
> The following Apache Members will be the sponsoring members :
>
> Alex Karasulu (Apache)
> Noel Bergman (Apache)
> Carsten Ziegeler (Apache)
> Berin Loritsch (Apache)
>
> The following community members support this effort :
>
> Daniel Fagerstrom (Apache)
> Niclas Hedhman (Apache)
> Peter Kriens (OSGi Alliance (Director of Technology) and Managing Director, aQute)
> Reinhard Poetz (Apache)
> Stefano Mazzocchi (Apache)
> Marcel Offermans (+2 others, Luminis)
> Rob Walker (Ascert, LLC)
> Gerald Friedland (Researcher, Freie Universität Berlin, E-Chalk Project)
> Timothy Bennett (Apache and Metro Government of Nashville/Davidson County)
> Juan Alonso (Independent)
> Stéphane Frénot (Associate Professor, INSA-Lyon/INRIA)
> Humberto Cervantes (Service Binder author and Professor/Researcher, UAM Iztapalapa)
> Emil Ivov (Ph.D. Candidate, Louis Pasteur University, Strasboug, France)
> Tom Enderes (CTO, Gatewide LLC)
> Eric Swindell (Software Craftsman, Caribbean Blue)
> Jesus Bermejo (Independent)
> David Ence (Lockheed Martin)
> Ed Anuff (DriveFire)
> Rick Litton (Kyocera)
> Peter Neubauer (OPS4J)
> Francesco Furfari (Domoware, Domotics Lab, ISTI-CNR)
> Stefano Lenzi (Domoware, Domotics Lab, ISTI-CNR)
> Matteo Demuru (Domoware, Domotics Lab, ISTI-CNR)
> Karl Pauls (Raccoon/Eureka/Sopa, Researcher (DFG), Fu-Berlin)
> Andreas Oberhack (Apache)
>
>
> Operating Considerations
> ------------------------
>
> We have established a list for discussions. Unless your comment is directed
> to the general Incubator community or the Incubator PMC, please post
> everything to :
>
> oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
> You can subscribe by sending an email to
>
> oscar-dev-subscribe@incubator.apache.org
>
> Until this proposal has been accepted by the Apache Incubator PMC, these lists
> are provisional.
>
>
> --
> Alex Karasulu +1-904-982-6992
> akarasulu@apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Oh btw the turnout for this is so massive we're getting a trickle of
supporters daily and adding them to the document. Perhaps we can get a
wiki up soon and the dev lists. For the time being here's the document
in subversion:
https://svn.safehaus.org/repos/sandbox/proposals/osgi/osgi-proposal.txt
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The OSGi community at large, several Apache committers and members
> would like to start a new project based on the existing Oscar OSGi
> Container which Richard Hall is graciously willing to donate. Without
> further commentary we present to you the proposal for the Oscar project:
>
<snip/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [proposal] Oscar OSGi Project
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
+1
Please start the incubation process, keeping in mind that all IP issues must
be resolved during incubation.
CLAs and a Software Grant for the existing code base(s) should be filed
ASAP.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org