[JSR358-17] "license review" process loopholes effectively grant veto power Created: 21/Sep/11 Updated: 08/Apr/14
|Remaining Estimate:||Not Specified|
|Time Spent:||Not Specified|
|Original Estimate:||Not Specified|
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.
|Comment by sean_sheedy [ 21/Sep/11 ]|
This is another issue where a choice of clearly open licenses would eliminate this problem altogether.
|Comment by pcurran [ 22/Sep/11 ]|
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.
|Comment by pcurran [ 29/Sep/11 ]|
Agreed at the September 29 WG meeting:
Delete the sentence "The opinion of Oracle legal shall be the
Defer this issue so we can address it in the future.
|Comment by eduardo [ 30/Sep/11 ]|
I have deleted the sentence in question
|Comment by pcurran [ 01/Oct/11 ]|
Reopening, so we can keep this on our radar as deferred