[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs

From a comment I received in private, I must re-state something that I said about being a JCP/JSPA rule.

Disclosure: not a lawyer, not an IP specialist, not a OSS guy. I (think I have) learned this from seating on the JCP meetings.

I said "and only Oracle can lead a platform JSR (like Java EE - that's a JCP/JSPA rule).".ÂIt's more of combination of the JSPA and the JCP Process document. Only Oracle can (that's my understanding) fulfill the use of the trademarks and they must approve the ballot for it to go thru, so there wouldn't be a JSR for a Platform without Oracle's blessing. Maybe "lead" was the wrong term.

From the JSPA:

8. Use of Trademarks. Subject to any other rights and obligations You may have pursuant to other agreements with Oracle with respect to the use of trademarks owned or otherwise licensable by Oracle, You may refer to Oracleâs Java technology or programming language to the same extent as the general public, provided that such reference is not misleading or likely to cause confusion. The Third Party Usage Guidelines for Oracle Trademarks are currently available on the web at http://www.oracle.com/html/3party.html.

And the JCP Process Doc:

Umbrella Java Specification Request (UJSR): A JSR that defines or revises a Platform Edition or Profile Specification. A UJSR proceeds through the JCP like any other JSR.

3.7.7 JSR ballot rules
  Ballots to approve Umbrella JSRs that define the initial version of a new Platform Edition Specification or JSRs that propose changes to the Java language are approved if (a) at least a two-thirds majority of the votes cast are "yes" votes, (b) a minimum of 5 "yes" votes are cast, and (c) Oracle casts one of the "yes" votes. Ballots are otherwise rejected.

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Leonardo Lima <leomrlima@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello, Markus.

I think we were both wrong and missing words in our statements.Â

Going back to the minutes (Final Minutes for September 2017)Âand presentation (Java EE Update), with my added emphasis:

Will Lyons presented an update on plans for Java EE 8 (see presentation for details). Maulin asked about other Java EE JSRs that are not led by Oracle. Will responded that Oracle JSRs would go first and then other JSRs led by IBM and Red Hat would be integrated at another time. Mark commented that it would be bad form to move projects from Apache to Eclipse. Will stated that the EE4J project is looking for sponsors and community input as they develop a spec process. Simon asked about leaving the name as Java EE. Will responded that it is an Oracle trademark issue, and that it will become an Eclipse project. Volker asked about whether names of existing JSRs would changed , and Will stated that naming at the individual API level will be discussed. Bruno raised concern that Java EE may not be governed by the JCP anymore, and this is more worrisome that the name. Amelia asked how smaller companies will be able to complete with big companies without the JCP and how we can move forward. Mike commented that the spec process will defined and recommended companies to get engaged. Will responded that it would be a more level playing field where no vendor has a particular position. Mike commented that Eclipse does not acquire rights to code. Amelia commented that the community has to be behind it and Oracle has done a great job with the JCP. Tim asked for clarity around Java EE technologies being contributed that are not part of Java EE 8, such as JCACHE. Will could not comment on that at this time. Oracle will not relicense the specs under an open source license, but new specs can be created by referencing existing specifications, and functionality can be validated by the TCKs. Mike commented that open source licenses are not necessarily good licenses for specs. Hendrik asked if all Java EE JSRs would move out of the JCP and Prasad asked if there was a date to shut down the JCP. Will responded that Oracle is not shutting down the JCP, and existing Java EE specs and maintenance would continue through the JCP, but Oracle does not expect to file new JSRs for Java EE related technologies. Leo commented that he did not understand why it sounds like Oracle is emptying the JCP. Will responded that the scope of this discussion is around Java EE. Oracle plans to use the JCP for Java SE, and that donating Java EE 8 to Eclipse and defining a development process is a healthy evolution. Bruno commented that there is a perception for the JCP is an Oracle organization, and he never thought Oracle would move in this direction, so we have doubts but this is the purpose to move things forward. Mark commented that a move out of the JCP can evolve to be focus for new efforts. Heather concluded the discussion with comments that we will continue to discuss the impacts on the JCP in future EC meetings.

So, everything is yet up for to be decided. What I stated was from my memory of the meeting, which is not a valid single source for such huge statement. The EE4J PMC has yet to announce this new standardization process. That's where everyone can get involved - helping shape the way it is going to be. Unit then, new JSRs for Java EE led by Oracle are unlikely; and only Oracle can lead a platform JSR (like Java EE - that's a JCP/JSPA rule).

I discussed more with other people since the meeting to understand the move and some perceive it as good thing, while others don't (you can see from the minutes one of my concerns). But they are all *my* opinions and, until statements are done via official ways, don't assume them to be the truth.

Regards,
Leo.

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Leo, this is not true. The EE4J PMC multiply explained that future versions of existing specs will be developed at the Eclipse Foundation, but *will* be standardized still through the JCP.

-Markus

Â

From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org] On Behalf Of Leonardo Lima
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. November 2017 19:46
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs

Â

Hello, Guillermo.

Â

"Does it mean existing specs will need to be continued on the JCP after the Eclipse donation?"

Â

My understanding is that this means that there might be Maintenance Releases of these JSRs fixing bugs or updating the JCP version, for example.

Â

New versions of theÂJava EE / EE4J Specs would *not* be done thru the JCP.

Â

Regards,

Leo.

Â

Â

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Guillermo GonzÃlez de AgÃero <z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

Reading the JCP september minutes, I find the following statement from Will Lyons: "[...] existing Java EE specs and maintenance would continue through the JCP, but Oracle does not expect to file new JSRs for Java EE related technologies. [...]"

Everything I've read in this list indicated EE4J would have no relationship with the JCP. Does it mean existing specs will need to be continued on the JCP after the Eclipse donation?

Â

Â

Regards,

Guillermo GonzÃlez de AgÃero


_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community

Â


_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community