[JSR358-17] "license review" process loopholes effectively grant veto power Created: 21/Sep/11  Updated: 08/Apr/14

Status: Reopened
Project: jsr358
Component/s: Licensing
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Bug Priority: Major
Reporter: sean_sheedy Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Labels: None
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified


 Description   

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.



 Comments   
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.

Comments?

Comment by pcurran [ 29/Sep/11 ]

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.

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

Generated at Sat Feb 28 12:25:40 UTC 2015 using JIRA 6.2.3#6260-sha1:63ef1d6dac3f4f4d7db4c1effd405ba38ccdc558.