Re: draft ee spec notices.... is this allowed?

[Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>]

Moving this from legal-discuss to jcp-open -- seems more appropriate,  
here...

On Jan 29, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> Yes, this is wrong.  I already beat this back for faces (IIRC) as  
> they had the same limited FOU.
>
> it's an accident - it comes from some old boilerplate.
>
> I'll see if I can get it fixed ASAP.

Hi Geir,
You ever hear anything back on this? This is still an issue with the  
Proposed Final Draft for 317 that was just put out...

--kevan

>
> geir
>
> On Jan 29, 2009, at 12:29 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> Geronimo has been working towards ee6 spec implementations and we  
>> have a number of draft ee6 spec jars, in particular one for jpa  
>> 2.0.  The draft jpa 2.0 spec includes this:
>>
>> <jsr-317 draft>
>> NOTICE
>> ...
>> 2.Distribute implementations of the Specification to third parties  
>> for their testing and evaluation use, provided that any such  
>> implementation:
>> (i) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the  
>> Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages,  
>> classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor  
>> Name Space other than those required/authorized by the  
>> Specification or Specifications being implemented;
>> (ii)is clearly and prominently marked with the word "UNTESTED" or  
>> "EARLY ACCESS" or "INCOMPATIBLE"
>> or "UNSTABLE" or "BETA" in any list of available builds and in  
>> proximity to every link initiating its download, where the list or  
>> link is under Licensee's control; and
>> (iii)includes the following notice:
>> "This is an implementation of an early-draft specification  
>> developed under the Java Community Process (JCP) and is made  
>> available for testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not  
>> compatible with any specification of the JCP."
>> </jsr-317 draft>
>>
>> OpenJPA is trying to release a milestone towards implementing this,  
>> and need the spec jar to be released.
>>
>> Is there any problem releasing a jar with the notice in (iii)  
>> included?  It seems similar to a FOU restriction. On the other hand  
>> the notice looks grammatically ambiguous to me and I tend to  
>> interpret the first sentence as:
>>
>> This is an implementation of an early-draft specification developed  
>> under the Java Community Process (JCP) and the early-draft  
>> specification is made available for testing and evaluation purposes  
>> only. (so you can do anything you want with our code)
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>