You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> on 2007/07/03 21:19:12 UTC
Why require an opensource RI?
Sam,
In your proposed changes to the JCP policy you added:
"License their Reference Implementations (RIs) and Technology
Compatibility Kits (TCKs) in a manner that neither requires an NDA
for access, nor imposes restrictions that would preclude
implementation of the original JSR under open source licenses. In
particular, the license for the TCK may not impose FOU requirements
on implementations."
I'm curious why we care about the license for anyone else's
implementation of a JSR even if it is the "Reference Implementation"?
-dain
Re: Why require an opensource RI?
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On 7/3/07, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> Sam,
>
> In your proposed changes to the JCP policy you added:
>
> "License their Reference Implementations (RIs) and Technology
> Compatibility Kits (TCKs) in a manner that neither requires an NDA
> for access, nor imposes restrictions that would preclude
> implementation of the original JSR under open source licenses. In
> particular, the license for the TCK may not impose FOU requirements
> on implementations."
>
> I'm curious why we care about the license for anyone else's
> implementation of a JSR even if it is the "Reference Implementation"?
Good point.
-Matthias
> -dain
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: Why require an opensource RI?
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
In that case we would only need binary redistribution rights which
could be FOU restricted to TCK testing.
-dain
On Jul 3, 2007, at 8:05 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> For TCK there are tests (at least for J2EE / Java EE) for interop
> that validates correctness. In that case it makes sense. Not sure
> about the other TCKs.
>
> On Jul 3, 2007, at 3:19 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> Sam,
>>
>> In your proposed changes to the JCP policy you added:
>>
>> "License their Reference Implementations (RIs) and Technology
>> Compatibility Kits (TCKs) in a manner that neither requires an NDA
>> for access, nor imposes restrictions that would preclude
>> implementation of the original JSR under open source licenses. In
>> particular, the license for the TCK may not impose FOU
>> requirements on implementations."
>>
>> I'm curious why we care about the license for anyone else's
>> implementation of a JSR even if it is the "Reference Implementation"?
>>
>> -dain
>>
>
Re: Why require an opensource RI?
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
For TCK there are tests (at least for J2EE / Java EE) for interop
that validates correctness. In that case it makes sense. Not sure
about the other TCKs.
On Jul 3, 2007, at 3:19 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Sam,
>
> In your proposed changes to the JCP policy you added:
>
> "License their Reference Implementations (RIs) and Technology
> Compatibility Kits (TCKs) in a manner that neither requires an NDA
> for access, nor imposes restrictions that would preclude
> implementation of the original JSR under open source licenses. In
> particular, the license for the TCK may not impose FOU requirements
> on implementations."
>
> I'm curious why we care about the license for anyone else's
> implementation of a JSR even if it is the "Reference Implementation"?
>
> -dain
>