Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: JSR358-17
Type: Bug Bug
Status: Reopened Reopened
Priority: Major Major
Assignee: Unassigned
Reporter: sean_sheedy
Votes: 0
Watchers: 0
Operations

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
jsr358

"license review" process loopholes effectively grant veto power

Created: 21/Sep/11 05:59 PM   Updated: 08/Apr/14 07:46 PM
Component/s: Licensing
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Time Tracking:
Not Specified

Tags:
Participants: eduardo, pcurran and sean_sheedy


 Description  « Hide

Process Document review

line numbers: JCP-2.8-21SEP2011-Redlined.pdf

471-474 - too open-ended. Can only two members kick a license into Oracle legal? No timeframe for Oracle legal to make a decision. Also major problems with making this rest on Oracle legal. Should go through an independent mediator. The EC can always vote no, but it should be allowed a vote, otherwise this gives Oracle veto power.

PC> Please open an issue if you want to pursue this further.

SS> In other words, two members could call for a review and Oracle legal could simply take forever to make a decision, holding up the license until patents/copyrights revert to the public domain.

Suggestions: review requires a majority vote (2/3?) and is done by independent legal counsel.



pcurran added a comment - 01/Oct/11 05:28 PM

Reopening, so we can keep this on our radar as deferred


eduardo added a comment - 30/Sep/11 08:58 PM

I have deleted the sentence in question


pcurran added a comment - 29/Sep/11 03:53 PM

Agreed at the September 29 WG meeting:

Delete the sentence "The opinion of Oracle legal shall be the
final decision on the matter."

Defer this issue so we can address it in the future.


pcurran added a comment - 22/Sep/11 01:07 PM

We've tried and failed to document this undocumented process to the satisfaction of all concerned.

On behalf of Steve Wolfe (IBM,) who suggested this after the September 21 Working Group meeting, I propose that we simply delete the text we added in an attempt to address this, and leave the issue unresolved (as it was when we started this JSR.)

We can take it up again in the JSR that modifies the JSPA.

Comments?


sean_sheedy added a comment - 21/Sep/11 06:00 PM

This is another issue where a choice of clearly open licenses would eliminate this problem altogether.