You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> on 2007/07/01 15:17:37 UTC
Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR? (was: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies)
On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> [resending a fourth time, apparently moderation is being ignored
> this week.]
>
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>
>>> I would ask that we see if we have exhausted all efforts to
>>> communication with Sun on this issue and do a risk/reward
>>> analysis on
>>> steps moving forward.
>>
>> We have exhausted all steps and there is no further analysis needed.
>> Sun refuses to give us a TCK without FOU restrictions. We can't
>> agree
>> to FOU restrictions while distributing as open source. End of story.
>> We shouldn't even be participating in the JCP at this point.
>
> Roy raises a good point. One person recently asked (paraphrasing)
> "What
> has the ASF done to react to the expiration of the 30 day notice
> period
> cited by the Sun open letter?" The concern is one of credibility and
> 'teeth' that we back our deadlines with some followup action. Of
> course,
> what is defined by 'action' is pretty broad. Simply the new dialog on
> jcp-open of the next-steps, carried out in public, is action.
>
> Arguably, we are now redefining our relationship to JCP's in general
> and our expectations of participating in any given JCP. That's good.
> All discussion of this issue has migrated into the open-sphere. Also
> very good.
>
> To counter Roy's broad brush, not every Spec Lead violates the
> terms of
> the JSPA as Sun has. Withdrawing from the JCP entirely is not worth
> considering, as long as there are some JSR's driven by ethical spec
> leads
> who have adhered to the JSPA. (That is, unless the JCP breaks down
> due
> to Sun flexing veto muscles.)
>
> But in terms of this *specific* JCP and the misbehavior with respect
> to mutual understandings and specific agreements by the spec lead, and
> the lack of corrective action on the part of the spec lead...
>
> Isn't it time to formally withdraw from that JSR, if we still sit
> on it?
That JSR is over. It's done.
> Initially the contested Java SE JSR, and later any related/later
> JSR's of
> the same technology by the same spec lead, and finally - every JSR
> who's
> spec lead is in persistent violation of the mutually agreed-upon terms
> of the JSPA. This seems only rational, no?
That would be every Sun-led JSR.
>
> (However, more reading suggests that it's accepted and withdrawing
> from
> a 'completed' JSR is rather moot.)
Yes
>
> Not looking for votes, only feedback on the pros and cons of
> exiting those
> disfunctional JSR's which don't need to be held up to any mirror of
> a new
> ASF/JCP policy; only those which we can trivially determine to be
> already
> broken in respect to adhering to the JSPA, or adhering to their
> charter
> and that Spec's own policy?
This is the basic question we've always toyed with - is it worth
holding our nose because of the benefits our participation brings to
the JCP?
I'd say that up until the Java SE TCK, the answer is yes. I'd also
say that the Java SE TCK collision with Sun will be viewed as an
important milestone - we've shined light into one of the remaining
dark corners of the JCP. (The other remaining is Java ME)
I think that the core issue behind the Java SE TCK is less about the
license terms, and more that Sun has been able to control things due
to a web of commercial relationships where business pragmatism kept
things quiet. Things are no longer quiet. We've woken a sleeping
giant.
So what to do? We are currently asking that each spec lead declare
they will offer the TCK under no-FOU terms, but I do wonder if that's
hollow when coming from Sun....
geir
Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR?
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/2/07, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > IIRC one of the sun blogs stated that lawyers at sun have argued that
> > JSPA does not mean anything like this
>
> Link please?
sadly i didn't note it down at the time
> For Sun Legal to say that would be, uh, interesting.
at the time i took it to be nothing at all to do with sun legal
- robert
Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 7/2/07, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IIRC one of the sun blogs stated that lawyers at sun have argued that
> JSPA does not mean anything like this
Link please?
For Sun Legal to say that would be, uh, interesting. -- justin
Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR?
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/2/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > On 7/1/07, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <geir@pobox.com <ma...@pobox.com>>
> > wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
<snip>
> > the GPL3 has finally been issued/ apache should now take the offensive
> > and move the battle onto ground more favourable to us. we should propose
> > and lead an ethics process JSR. the aim would be to examine how the JCP
> > process can be improved to allow greater participation by non-profit and
> > academic organisations and the general public, and examine specification
> > lead ethics.
>
> Interesting idea. But as the JSPA already spelled these things out,
IIRC one of the sun blogs stated that lawyers at sun have argued that
JSPA does not mean anything like this
> there is not much another document will do to correct a signatory who ignores it.
as a non-profit, participation in a process that is run for benefit of
a single corporation is very difficult. if the current process does
not (as we thought) guarantee that non-profits are able to participate
then the process needs to change. JSRs are the way that these
processes are changed.
AIUI JSPA suffers from a hub and spoke architecture: everyone has
agreements with sun. this means that sun is able to bully any player
who is too small to sue.
(interestingly, a similar structure with similar weaknesses has been
set up for OpenJDK)
- robert
Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 12:47 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>> On 7/1/07, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <geir@pobox.com
>> <ma...@pobox.com>>
>> wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Initially the contested Java SE JSR, and later any related/later
>>> JSR's of
>>> the same technology by the same spec lead, and finally - every
>>> JSR who's
>>> spec lead is in persistent violation of the mutually agreed-upon
>>> terms
>>> of the JSPA. This seems only rational, no?
>>
>> That would be every Sun-led JSR.
>
> That's a broad overgeneralization.
No, it's a fact. Sun is the spec lead on every Sun-led JSR. Our
position is that Sun is in violation of the JSPA. Therefore...
> Sun has been less flexible with the J2SE,
> J2EE specs, while being more flexible with others. What I was
> saying is that
> the successor to the flawed J2SE (is that JSR 270?) would
> automatically be
> nixed until there was affirmative proof that issues have been
> addressed.
No. That gives the the spec lead the ability to misbehave and exert
extra-JSPA control in areas where they wish, and still remain a
citizen in good standing.
We have one agreement with Sun. That's the JSPA. They are in
violation of it...
geir
Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 7/1/07, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <geir@pobox.com <ma...@pobox.com>>
> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Initially the contested Java SE JSR, and later any related/later JSR's of
>> the same technology by the same spec lead, and finally - every JSR who's
>> spec lead is in persistent violation of the mutually agreed-upon terms
>> of the JSPA. This seems only rational, no?
>
> That would be every Sun-led JSR.
That's a broad overgeneralization. Sun has been less flexible with the J2SE,
J2EE specs, while being more flexible with others. What I was saying is that
the successor to the flawed J2SE (is that JSR 270?) would automatically be
nixed until there was affirmative proof that issues have been addressed.
> IMO this would be a tactical mistake. not only do sun lead some very
> important JSRs but some specification leads from sun run completely
> transparent operations. our aim should be to effect change in the
> process. arguing about the meaning of the terms of the JSPA leads to the
> trap of making this a legal dispute rather than an ethical one.
+1
> i think that it would be more effective to target particular named
> individuals than corporations. AIUI Mark Reinhold runs this JSR. i think
> it would be stronger to publicly blacklist him on the basis that his
> word cannot be trusted. apache should announce that (in front) they will
> vote against every proposal with which he is associated and blacklist
> all JSRs that he leads.
As we said, MR is at the mercy of his organization (just as our experts
are at our mercy, in their role as ASF members, to follow our policies).
Blacklisting him-the-individual is foolish...
> apache could and should publicly blacklist that JSR
and IT'S successors until the situation is corrected. Not 'his' per say.
Of course, if it's a pattern of MR mismanaging JSRs that he leads, then
it's no longer the messenger, and I won't disagree.
> i'd like to pose a related question: are the chances of effecting
> meaningful change within the JCP worth the cost of the present imperfect?
>
> I'd say that up until the Java SE TCK, the answer is yes. I'd also
> say that the Java SE TCK collision with Sun will be viewed as an
> important milestone - we've shined light into one of the remaining
> dark corners of the JCP. (The other remaining is Java ME)
>
> I think that the core issue behind the Java SE TCK is less about the
> license terms, and more that Sun has been able to control things due
> to a web of commercial relationships where business pragmatism kept
> things quiet. Things are no longer quiet. We've woken a sleeping
> giant.
+1, which is why I'm concerned about putting this at MR as an individual.
There are certain specs that apparently Sun does NOT want to be open, and
we should no longer participate on the expert groups of those JSRs.
> a declaration is worth only as much as the word of the individual
> leading the specification. is there any reason not to insist on the
> actual license for non-profits to be issued before the vote?
Certainly before the final call.
> but this is really only about changing our own rules
Or as folks point out, shine the flashlight on what we -will- participate
in, and downplay the converse of that.
> the GPL3 has finally been issued/ apache should now take the offensive
> and move the battle onto ground more favourable to us. we should propose
> and lead an ethics process JSR. the aim would be to examine how the JCP
> process can be improved to allow greater participation by non-profit and
> academic organisations and the general public, and examine specification
> lead ethics.
Interesting idea. But as the JSPA already spelled these things out, there
is not much another document will do to correct a signatory who ignores it.
Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR? (was: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies)
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 3:18 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> Robert - are you accidentally sending rich text mail? :)
> >
> > for some reason, looks like gmail decided to send MULTIPART/
> > ALTERNATIVE :-/
> >
> > hopefully this one will be plain text
>
> perfect
>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Did you catch Linus Torvalds calling JIS out on this stuff?
> >
> > nope - do you have an url?
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/12/232
>
> and the response from JIS :
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/one_plus_one_is_fifty
>
> My favorite quote :
>
> "we have no intention of holding anything back, or pulling patent
> nonsense."
:-)
since it seems to be open season for springing unusual demands, why we
should insist that JIS cooks dinner for all harmony committers whilst
we're at it ;-)
- robert
Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 4:02 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> and the response from JIS :
>>>
>>> http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/one_plus_one_is_fifty
>>>
>>> My favorite quote :
>>>
>>> "we have no intention of holding anything back, or pulling patent
>>> nonsense."
This calls out that Sun is not gunning for the users of their patents
in the open source sphere.
>> Mine...
>>
>> "Did the Linux community hurt Sun? No, not a bit. It was the companies
>> that leveraged their work. I draw a very sharp distinction - even if
>> our competition is conveniently reckless. They like to paint the battle
>> as Sun vs. the community, and it's not. Companies compete, communities
>> simply fracture."
This calls out that Sun (at least Jonathon) does not correlate successful
open source communities with the business interests that nip at their heels.
Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 4:02 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>> and the response from JIS :
>>
>> http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/one_plus_one_is_fifty
>>
>> My favorite quote :
>>
>> "we have no intention of holding anything back, or pulling patent
>> nonsense."
>
> Mine...
>
> "Did the Linux community hurt Sun? No, not a bit. It was the companies
> that leveraged their work. I draw a very sharp distinction - even if
> our competition is conveniently reckless. They like to paint the
> battle
> as Sun vs. the community, and it's not. Companies compete, communities
> simply fracture."
>
> which is much more relevant to the ASF.
I'm not sure I see it. The Java SE TCK issue is all about necessary
IP flows.
geir
Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> and the response from JIS :
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/one_plus_one_is_fifty
>
> My favorite quote :
>
> "we have no intention of holding anything back, or pulling patent
> nonsense."
Mine...
"Did the Linux community hurt Sun? No, not a bit. It was the companies
that leveraged their work. I draw a very sharp distinction - even if
our competition is conveniently reckless. They like to paint the battle
as Sun vs. the community, and it's not. Companies compete, communities
simply fracture."
which is much more relevant to the ASF.
Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR? (was: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 3:18 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Robert - are you accidentally sending rich text mail? :)
>
> for some reason, looks like gmail decided to send MULTIPART/
> ALTERNATIVE :-/
>
> hopefully this one will be plain text
perfect
>
> <snip>
>
>> Did you catch Linus Torvalds calling JIS out on this stuff?
>
> nope - do you have an url?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/12/232
and the response from JIS :
http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/one_plus_one_is_fifty
My favorite quote :
"we have no intention of holding anything back, or pulling patent
nonsense."
geir
>
> - robert
Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR? (was: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies)
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/2/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Robert - are you accidentally sending rich text mail? :)
for some reason, looks like gmail decided to send MULTIPART/ALTERNATIVE :-/
hopefully this one will be plain text
<snip>
> Did you catch Linus Torvalds calling JIS out on this stuff?
nope - do you have an url?
- robert
Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR? (was: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Robert - are you accidentally sending rich text mail? :)
inline
On Jul 1, 2007, at 4:45 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 7/1/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> Initially the contested Java SE JSR, and later any related/later
>> > JSR's of
>> > the same technology by the same spec lead, and finally - every JSR
>> > who's
>> > spec lead is in persistent violation of the mutually agreed-upon
>> terms
>> > of the JSPA. This seems only rational, no?
>>
>> That would be every Sun-led JSR.
>
>
> IMO this would be a tactical mistake. not only do sun lead some very
> important JSRs but some specification leads from sun run completely
> transparent operations. our aim should be to effect change in the
> process.
> arguing about the meaning of the terms of the JSPA leads to the
> trap of
> making this a legal dispute rather than an ethical one.
I've argued that the basic premise of our engagement in the JCP is
just that - to affect change in the process. Yeah, we've had to hold
our nose, but I think that good things have happened. However, the
Java SE TCK demonstrates that the system has a fundamental problem -
that despite Sun's PR and spin to the contrary, Sun is a member that
has "first among equals" status (which we knew and were willing to
live with), and is very ready and willing to exploit that status when
their business conditions warrant it (which we didn't expect).
Don't forget that even though nice humans that work for Sun are the
humans that do the work of the spec lead, at the end of the day it's
Sun that is the spec lead. This whole thing is a tragedy - I have
lots of friends at Sun, people I consider very good friends. But it
doesn't change the fact that Sun-the-corporation is making a very
deliberate decision to behave in the way they are behaving towards
us, and therefore I (and us) need to do what we need to do, even if
that puts a strain on those friendships.
I expect that this will eventually resolve - Sun really can't
maintain this position and still keep pretending that they are
interested in Java as an open ecosystem, or community-oriented open
source, or the "participation age", or whatever...
Did you catch Linus Torvalds calling JIS out on this stuff?
>
> i think that it would be more effective to target particular named
> individuals than corporations. AIUI Mark Reinhold runs this JSR. i
> think it
> would be stronger to publicly blacklist him on the basis that his word
> cannot be trusted. apache should announce that (in front) they will
> vote
> against every proposal with which he is associated and blacklist
> all JSRs
> that he leads.
Nah - he's an employee who represents the company on that specific
issue, and when he says something touching on licensing and such,
it's because he went to the Pit of Darkness (it's in the back of
Building 18 at Sun's Menlo Park campus) and conferred with the
lawyers. Mark is actually a good guy, IMO.
Look at it another way - many have tried to paint me as the bad guy
in all of this, not realizing (or pretending not to realize) that our
open letter was from the ASF, not me personally.
>
>> (However, more reading suggests that it's accepted and withdrawing
>> > from
>> > a 'completed' JSR is rather moot.)
>>
>> Yes
>
>
> yep
>
> apache could and should publicly blacklist that JSR
>
>> Not looking for votes, only feedback on the pros and cons of
>> > exiting those
>> > disfunctional JSR's which don't need to be held up to any mirror of
>> > a new
>> > ASF/JCP policy; only those which we can trivially determine to be
>> > already
>> > broken in respect to adhering to the JSPA, or adhering to their
>> > charter
>> > and that Spec's own policy?
>>
>> This is the basic question we've always toyed with - is it worth
>> holding our nose because of the benefits our participation brings to
>> the JCP?
>
>
> i'd like to pose a related question: are the chances of effecting
> meaningful
> change within the JCP worth the cost of the present imperfect?
>
> I'd say that up until the Java SE TCK, the answer is yes. I'd also
>> say that the Java SE TCK collision with Sun will be viewed as an
>> important milestone - we've shined light into one of the remaining
>> dark corners of the JCP. (The other remaining is Java ME)
>>
>> I think that the core issue behind the Java SE TCK is less about the
>> license terms, and more that Sun has been able to control things due
>> to a web of commercial relationships where business pragmatism kept
>> things quiet. Things are no longer quiet. We've woken a sleeping
>> giant.
>
>
> :-)
>
> So what to do? We are currently asking that each spec lead declare
>> they will offer the TCK under no-FOU terms, but I do wonder if that's
>> hollow when coming from Sun....
>
>
> a declaration is worth only as much as the word of the individual
> leading
> the specification. is there any reason not to insist on the actual
> license
> for non-profits to be issued before the vote?'
We're working towards that, but not there yet.
>
> but this is really only about changing our own rules
>
> the GPL3 has finally been issued/ apache should now take the
> offensive and
> move the battle onto ground more favourable to us. we should
> propose and
> lead an ethics process JSR. the aim would be to examine how the JCP
> process
> can be improved to allow greater participation by non-profit and
> academic
> organisations and the general public, and examine specification
> lead ethics.
>
> - robert
Re: Inaction on Java SE JSR? (was: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies)
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/1/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 29, 2007, at 4:24 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
<snip>
> Initially the contested Java SE JSR, and later any related/later
> > JSR's of
> > the same technology by the same spec lead, and finally - every JSR
> > who's
> > spec lead is in persistent violation of the mutually agreed-upon terms
> > of the JSPA. This seems only rational, no?
>
> That would be every Sun-led JSR.
IMO this would be a tactical mistake. not only do sun lead some very
important JSRs but some specification leads from sun run completely
transparent operations. our aim should be to effect change in the process.
arguing about the meaning of the terms of the JSPA leads to the trap of
making this a legal dispute rather than an ethical one.
i think that it would be more effective to target particular named
individuals than corporations. AIUI Mark Reinhold runs this JSR. i think it
would be stronger to publicly blacklist him on the basis that his word
cannot be trusted. apache should announce that (in front) they will vote
against every proposal with which he is associated and blacklist all JSRs
that he leads.
> (However, more reading suggests that it's accepted and withdrawing
> > from
> > a 'completed' JSR is rather moot.)
>
> Yes
yep
apache could and should publicly blacklist that JSR
> Not looking for votes, only feedback on the pros and cons of
> > exiting those
> > disfunctional JSR's which don't need to be held up to any mirror of
> > a new
> > ASF/JCP policy; only those which we can trivially determine to be
> > already
> > broken in respect to adhering to the JSPA, or adhering to their
> > charter
> > and that Spec's own policy?
>
> This is the basic question we've always toyed with - is it worth
> holding our nose because of the benefits our participation brings to
> the JCP?
i'd like to pose a related question: are the chances of effecting meaningful
change within the JCP worth the cost of the present imperfect?
I'd say that up until the Java SE TCK, the answer is yes. I'd also
> say that the Java SE TCK collision with Sun will be viewed as an
> important milestone - we've shined light into one of the remaining
> dark corners of the JCP. (The other remaining is Java ME)
>
> I think that the core issue behind the Java SE TCK is less about the
> license terms, and more that Sun has been able to control things due
> to a web of commercial relationships where business pragmatism kept
> things quiet. Things are no longer quiet. We've woken a sleeping
> giant.
:-)
So what to do? We are currently asking that each spec lead declare
> they will offer the TCK under no-FOU terms, but I do wonder if that's
> hollow when coming from Sun....
a declaration is worth only as much as the word of the individual leading
the specification. is there any reason not to insist on the actual license
for non-profits to be issued before the vote?
but this is really only about changing our own rules
the GPL3 has finally been issued/ apache should now take the offensive and
move the battle onto ground more favourable to us. we should propose and
lead an ethics process JSR. the aim would be to examine how the JCP process
can be improved to allow greater participation by non-profit and academic
organisations and the general public, and examine specification lead ethics.
- robert