JCP.next JSR2 list of proposed changes
Updated May 23 2011
Expert Group transparency
- Eliminate confidentiality language from the JSPA.
- We have draft language (from the JSR 306 draft)
Executive Committee transparency
- (Overflow from JSR1 if necessary.)
- (Overflow from JSR1 if necessary.)
- Changes discussed but not incorporated into JSR1
- Publish lists of incompatible implementations.
- This is legally risky, and unnecessary (the list of incompatible
implementations can be derived from the list of compatible implementations.)
- Publish information about optional features that are implemented.
- This would be difficult to implement (what level of granularity
would we choose?)
- Strengthen the TCK quality requirements
- Before we do, make sure we're effectively policing existing requirements
- Require more formal reporting requirements for conformance claims.
- Would require generalizing compatibility requirements.
IP flow transparency
- (Overflow from JSR1 if necessary.)
- Make the JSPA less intimidating by refactoring into three layers
specs in public forums.
- A simple membership agreement for those who want voting privileges
and the right to serve on Expert Groups.
- The complexities of IP and compatibility obligations are
required only for Spec Leads – factor these out into
a separate agreement.
- Enable implementations before specs are finalized, to gain
- Must maintain compatibility.
- See Transplant JSR proposals
- Must declare during JSR submission
that this is a Transplant JSR or that it
will become one if the JSR doesn't complete within 3 years.
- The "it will become one" addition is new
- need to revise the existing language.
- Non-assertion patent covenant.
- We have draft language. Patrick to circulate this and ask
people to get their lawyers to comment
- May need to add wording to ensure that the non-assert promise transfers
with IP ownership.
- Should people be permitted to withdraw their
IP grants? At any time?
- JSPA Section 4D D. Withdrawal of Contributions due to Change
in Announced License Terms says Yes.
- Review this language - make sure
it's consistent with possibly-changed processes.
- Fix potential issues with JSPA Exhibit B.
- Needs legal review
- TODO: Oracle to start this
- Others should feel free to offer suggestions.
- Clarify what is a "duly authorized representative of Employer."
- Replace "Employer" with "Assignee"
- Implementation issues:
- People change employers
- Require individuals to "re-confirm" their membership
each year and at that point to confirm that the Exhibit
B is still valid or submit a new one.
- PMO to require a current Exhibit B whenever an individual
(or someone associated with a group where there is
not an employer-employee relationship joins an EG.
- What about members of groups where there is no employer
- Eg JUG, research institution, university, open source
- Define a mandatory standard Spec License.
- TODO: Patrick to circulate the "recommended" Spec
License for comments.
- Recommend (but do not require) standard RI and TCK licenses.
- Provide separate templates for Independent (open source)
and commercial implementors.
- TODO: Patrick to circulate examples for discussion
- Clarifiy the JSPA as discussed within
- Members will be asked to sign the new/revised JSPA (resulting
from JSR2) - some may insist on this clarification at that
- Modified JSPA should not grant rights to one player that
others don't have.
- Address the issue of where litigation should be located. California,
- California is an obstacle to Brazilian state involvement.
- According to Java Champion Douglas Jenssen this is also an
issue within the US. He has said in private mail:
"The issue is a legal one, where do legal disputes between
Sun/Oracle and a member -- whether individual, sponsored by
his employer, or corporation -- get litigated. When I last
met with the JCP, the answer was it has to be in California.
No public institution such as a state university is going to
agree to that, and many corporations will not agree either.
Hence I was told there are no members from public universities,
only from private ones that choose to agree."
- The JSPA says: "Any action related to this Agreement
will be governed by California law, excluding choice
of law rules, provided, however that neither party has
consented to the jurisdiction of any court located in the
other party´s country
- Changes to make it easier to collaborate with other standards-setting
- Incorporate the Hybrid and Transplant JSR proposals
from JSR 306. .,
- Transplant JSRs (enable incorporation and standardization
of work developed outside the JCP)
- Hybrid JSRs (allowing non-Java implementations of a JSR's
- Modify cost structure (in JSPA) to permit PMO to charge a nominal fee
for individuals if this should prove necessary.
- Eg, "fees for individuals are $250 per year... Fees may be waived
at the discretion of the PMO."
- Iincrease fees for commercial entities?
- Explicitly place JUGs in the same category as individuals.
- Phase-out the IEPA provisions (no longer used.)
- IEPA agreements never expire - we need to deal with this.
- Encourage existing IEPA members to "resign" or
to become full members.
- There aren't very many of them, so hopefully the PMO
can handle this.
- Remove references to IEPA from JSPA.
- Need legal approval for this.
- Clarify that a binary RI must be released by Spec Lead.
- Create an Architecture Council?
- Council would gather input from implementors, developers, and users
and to provide guidance to Platform Expert Groups on platform evolution
in the interests of maintaining competitiveness, compatibility and
- The membership of this group should be primarily technical,
and it must operate by consensus and through negotiation with the
Platform Spec Leads.
- Possible deliverables for the Council:
- Yearly survey
of the community
- Written responses to Platform JSRs.
- When will the changes in the JSPA take effect?
- We can not require that an existing JSR be ruled by new version
of the JSPA.
- Currently there is no requirement that members upgrade to the latest
- Note that section 2B uses the term "expires" but
it seems there is no way for a JSPA to expire (merely "terminate")
- we should fix this,
- Will the new version be version 3 (containing significant legal
- Presumably yes - otherwise why make the effort to modify it?
- If so, we want people to upgrade - all members should be operating
under similar IP grants.
- Specify a lengthy transition period (two years?) with a common
deadline, allowing ample time for review.
- All new JSRs must adopt the latest JSPA. This implies that
the Spec Lead and EG members must sign it when the JSR is submitted.
- The JSPA also forbids us from applying changes to JSRs that are in-progress
- "The Process is described on the JCP Web Site (at http:/jcp.org),
and may be revised from time to time in accordance with terms set
forth in the Process document, provided that no such revisions shall
apply to any JSR that has already been approved for development."
- Modify this language to give us the power
to apply Process Doc changes to in-flight JSRs.
- This wouldn't require us to do so, just make it possible
if we wish.
- The language should specify that at the EC's discretion
some or all of the requirements of the Process Document
will apply to all JSRs when they next make a formal state-change
through the process