JSR 173 Maintenance Review

[Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>]

Hi,

I noticed that JSR 173 is up for maintenance review. I remember there  
was some confusion and discussion on legal-discuss about the license  
of the API and RI since they moved to codehaus under the AL2. I think  
this was settled in the end, but am wondering - is this something  
that is appropriate to ask to be explicitly stated in the JSR revision?

Andy - BTW, I've also sent some technical feedback to the comments  
address and would be interested to hear if the EG receives it.

Cheers,
Brett

Re: JSR 173 Maintenance Review

[Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>]

It was clarified here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www- 
legal-discuss/200604.mbox/% 
3C9186D1D624F88F469BE0CC4F2DDB970B774BE4@repbex02.amer.bea.com%3E

It seems at the time they said that the JSR page would be updated  
immediately, so there's every chance it's already in mind for this  
revision.

There have been a few posts before that, and since, confused about  
the license of the API and the RI, and which RI is the real one :)

The current list of ones floating around associated directly with the  
RI (not independent implementations) seem to be:
- the original RI under the less permissive license, from BEA's site  
(via the JSR page)
- the one distributed with xmlbeans which I think was the first under  
AL2, which they get from http://sourceforge.net/projects/xmlpullparser/
- the one that is now supposed to be the RI, at http://stax.codehaus.org

Cheers,
Brett

On 27/01/2007, at 8:03 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

>
> On Jan 26, 2007, at 10:14 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed that JSR 173 is up for maintenance review. I remember  
>> there was some confusion and discussion on legal-discuss about the  
>> license of the API and RI since they moved to codehaus under the  
>> AL2. I think this was settled in the end, but am wondering - is  
>> this something that is appropriate to ask to be explicitly stated  
>> in the JSR revision?
>
> Refresh my memory. What was the issue?
>
> (And yes, we can ask anything we want...)
>
>>
>> Andy - BTW, I've also sent some technical feedback to the comments  
>> address and would be interested to hear if the EG receives it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>>

Re: JSR 173 Maintenance Review

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>]

On Jan 26, 2007, at 10:14 PM, Brett Porter wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I noticed that JSR 173 is up for maintenance review. I remember  
> there was some confusion and discussion on legal-discuss about the  
> license of the API and RI since they moved to codehaus under the  
> AL2. I think this was settled in the end, but am wondering - is  
> this something that is appropriate to ask to be explicitly stated  
> in the JSR revision?

Refresh my memory. What was the issue?

(And yes, we can ask anything we want...)

>
> Andy - BTW, I've also sent some technical feedback to the comments  
> address and would be interested to hear if the EG receives it.
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>

Re: JSR 173 Maintenance Review

[Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>]

I would definitely like to hear some clarification from the EG about the
license of the jsr173.jar and the RI. Preferrably I would like to see the
Sun download page use the AL2 license (which the jar should be under IIUC)
and also a license file included in the jars.

I would like to see clarifications to the XMLStreamReader APIs as to when
the various methods should return null or "" for default namespaces or no
prefixed elements.

I would also like to see the current RI go away as its been buggy and slow
in the past. Woodstox is much better, under the AL2, and actively
maintained.

Cheers,

- Dan

On 1/26/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that JSR 173 is up for maintenance review. I remember there
> was some confusion and discussion on legal-discuss about the license
> of the API and RI since they moved to codehaus under the AL2. I think
> this was settled in the end, but am wondering - is this something
> that is appropriate to ask to be explicitly stated in the JSR revision?
>
> Andy - BTW, I've also sent some technical feedback to the comments
> address and would be interested to hear if the EG receives it.
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
>


-- 
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com | http://netzooid.com/blog