In the September EC meeting (and prior to close of the Public Review) I expressed reservation about this JSR ultimately coming from a mindset other than that of a community which was, as I expressed it, "collaborating freely on a free platform, finding value not in the platform itself but in what can be created from it". Participating EG members should understand that I know a lot of work has gone into this, and the push for transparency is apparent. However, I kept finding instances where loopholes existed that could be exploited by someone less interested in collaborating and more interested in competing. That there remains an interest in monetization and control through licensing makes these loopholes difficult if not impossible to fill. Long story short, I was encouraged by other EG members to file my comments rather than abstain and let the JSR conclude without my input.
These comments are provided from the perspective of someone who believes that the Java platform should be an open platform as described to us developers so many times over the years in so many venues.
Had this JSR been limited to election reform and not touched license related issues, it would have met the original criteria of not being "controversial" (we had decided early this year to limit this JSR to low hanging fruit we could all agree on, and save the difficult revisions for the post-348 JSR.)
Comments to the Process and Standing Rules docs are attached.