Re: JSR291 OSGi - request for comment on final vote

[Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>]

On 5/20/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
> BTW - I forgot to mention...
>
> In the filing that IBM made to the JCP, IBM is clear that the TCK
> will be made available at no cost (aka "free") to qualified
> individuals, not-for-profits and academics, as required by the JSPA.

The problem with that statement is that that it merely is our
interpretation that the JSP requires such.  As long as one party sees
fit to violate that interpretation -- either directly or indirectly by
means such as prolonged foot dragging -- and as long as the
interpretation hasn't been tested in court, then we have to treat it
as merely our interpretation.

Furthermore, as long as the situation is that we accept statement X on
face value from spec lead Y, but not statement X' from spec lead Z,
the situation remains murky, and subject to gamesmanship (example: a
response from spec lead Z of, "well, what statement *would* you
accept?")

Let's make it simple.  Any vote gets a "NO!" until we actually *see*
the license.

- Sam Ruby

Re: JSR291 OSGi - request for comment on final vote

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On 5/21/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On May 21, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > Let's make it simple.  Any vote gets a "NO!" until we actually *see*
> > the license.
>
> How can you trust that will be the license at some time in the future?

I acknowledge that potential for infinite regress.  But that potential
is merely theoretical.  The fact that a JCP spec lead has attempted to
provide us with an unacceptable license is not theoretical, and
requesting actual licenses (as opposed to statements of intent)
earlier in the process is a prudent response to this situation.

> Glyn has posted the link to the license (in this thread) :
>
> http://www2.osgi.org/JSR291/TCK#nonprofitlicense
>
> Does that satisfy your concern?

It is a license.  We have seen it.  Unless somebody identifies a
specific concern with that specific license, yes.

I will also note that having the spec lead directly participate in the
open discussion and respond so quickly is a great precedent to have at
this time.

> geir

- Sam Ruby

Re: JSR291 OSGi - request for comment on final vote

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>]

On May 21, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On 5/20/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>> BTW - I forgot to mention...
>>
>> In the filing that IBM made to the JCP, IBM is clear that the TCK
>> will be made available at no cost (aka "free") to qualified
>> individuals, not-for-profits and academics, as required by the JSPA.
>
> The problem with that statement is that that it merely is our
> interpretation that the JSP requires such.

That's true.  The JSPA says in section 5F :

III. With respect to the TCK when licensed separately from the RI,  
for a Qualified Not-for-
Profit or Qualified Individual there shall be no charge for the  
license offered by the Spec Lead.

My interpretation is that there "shall be no charge", but given our  
current experience with Sun, it could mean anything, like requiring  
one to stuff a banana into a sinus cavity before being granted the  
TCK.  Now, in retrospect, this would be far more pleasant than our  
current situation with Sun....  I can see the headlines now in SD  
Times "Harmony Lead Offers to Stuff Banana Up Nose - Sun Limits  
Banana to General Purposes Noses"


>   As long as one party sees
> fit to violate that interpretation -- either directly or indirectly by
> means such as prolonged foot dragging -- and as long as the
> interpretation hasn't been tested in court, then we have to treat it
> as merely our interpretation.

Yep

>
> Furthermore, as long as the situation is that we accept statement X on
> face value from spec lead Y, but not statement X' from spec lead Z,
> the situation remains murky, and subject to gamesmanship (example: a
> response from spec lead Z of, "well, what statement *would* you
> accept?")
>
> Let's make it simple.  Any vote gets a "NO!" until we actually *see*
> the license.

How can you trust that will be the license at some time in the future?

Glyn has posted the link to the license (in this thread) :

http://www2.osgi.org/JSR291/TCK#nonprofitlicense

Does that satisfy your concern?

geir