jsr358
  1. jsr358
  2. JSR358-20

Access to RI/TCK needs to be explicitly granted to EG and community participating in JSR review

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Reopened
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Component/s: Transparency
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      This issue was first raised during the websocket jsr review as: http://java.net/jira/browse/WEBSOCKET_SPEC-2

      Not withstanding the current claim that Section 4B of the JSPA 2 allows an "evaluation license to members of the EC", the wording of Section 4B does not explicitly name the Executive Committee:
      B. Grants to Other Expert Group Members. You hereby grant to Member represented on any
Expert Group on which You are also represented under Your applicable patents, copyrights and trade secret
rights which You currently have or may acquire in the future a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty free,
fully paid-up, irrevocable license to use Your Contributions for research and development purposes
related to the activities of such Expert Group. Similarly, Oracle makes the same grant to You with respect to its
Contributions concerning Expert Groups on which You are represented. These grants, from You to other
Members and from Oracle to You, shall not include distribution to third parties of early access implementations
of the Spec under development by Your Expert Group until the draft Spec has been released for Public
Review.

      This needs to be spelled out explicitly.

      Further, in the interest of transparency, JCP members should be able to provide input on the validity of RIs and TCKs without the burden of having to become licensees of the technology.

        Activity

        Hide
        pcurran added a comment -

        This is out of scope for this JSR, which is not modifying the JSPA and therefore cannot fix any problems in that document.

        There is no problem in practice since you can "provide input on the validity of RIs and TCKs without the burden of having to become licensees of the technology."

        The Process Document states that "the Spec Lead shall send the Final Draft of the Specification to the PMO together with instructions on how EC members can obtain the RI and TCK for evaluation. The PMO shall circulate the materials to the EC and initiate the Final Approval Ballot."

        As you know, we never initiate a Final Approval Ballot without giving EC members access to the RI and TCK.

        So, while I agree that this should be clarified in the JSPA, that's no reason to hold up the completion of this JSR. I will therefore close this issue.

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - This is out of scope for this JSR, which is not modifying the JSPA and therefore cannot fix any problems in that document. There is no problem in practice since you can "provide input on the validity of RIs and TCKs without the burden of having to become licensees of the technology." The Process Document states that "the Spec Lead shall send the Final Draft of the Specification to the PMO together with instructions on how EC members can obtain the RI and TCK for evaluation. The PMO shall circulate the materials to the EC and initiate the Final Approval Ballot." As you know, we never initiate a Final Approval Ballot without giving EC members access to the RI and TCK. So, while I agree that this should be clarified in the JSPA, that's no reason to hold up the completion of this JSR. I will therefore close this issue.
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment -

        See my most recent comment.

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - See my most recent comment.
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment -

        I've just noticed that the wording of this issue states that the "community" should also be granted access to the RI and TCK. That is not required by the current version of the Process, and is therefore also out of scope for this JSR (which is limited to changes required to implement the EC merge.)

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - I've just noticed that the wording of this issue states that the "community" should also be granted access to the RI and TCK. That is not required by the current version of the Process, and is therefore also out of scope for this JSR (which is limited to changes required to implement the EC merge.)
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment -

        Although out of scope for JSR 355 this issue is obviously in-scope for JSR 358. I've reopened it, and will move it over to that project.

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - Although out of scope for JSR 355 this issue is obviously in-scope for JSR 358. I've reopened it, and will move it over to that project.

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            starksm64
          • Votes:
            2 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated: