I probably said "JSPA", but I should have referred to the Process Document.Thanks, in which chapter of the Process Document did you spot that?-------- Original-Nachricht --------> Datum: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:24:21 -0800> Von: "Steven G. Harris" < " target="_blank"> >> An: " target="_blank">> Betreff: [JSR358 EG] Re: [JSR 358 Observer] Re: Fw: Re: Re: Minutes from today\'s IP Working Group meeting
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Werner Keil < " target="_blank"> > wrote:About this remark from the minutes:>SteveH: the JSPA explicitly states that Oracle is the Spec Lead for Platform Specs.Which section of the JSPA did you mean?As Calinel mentioned, at least MSA would have violated that, but I couldn't find the JSPA saying only Sun, now Oracle can be Spec Lead of UJSRs.Thanks,Werner
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Werner Keil < " target="_blank"> > wrote:That's not speculation, we heard that from your colleague first hand at the EC/JUG Dinner, and he also talked to interesting JUG leaders e.g. from SouJava about that.If you feel, you need to represent the interests of ME in the current 358 WG, I guess nothing keeps you from joining those calls, helping the WG to address a licensing model that works not just for SE but any ME JSR currently out or in the making.Looking at the minutes of the last few calls, you may see, ME wasn't found to be too relevant, and unless you agree with that (in which case, you may not need to join) it's probably a good idea to speak up there...
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:01 PM, calinel pasteanu < " target="_blank"> > wrote:On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Werner Keil wrote:Bringing the discussion back to licensing, what we heard confirms Steve Harris' point, that in the ME/Embedded world, Umbrella JSRs play a minor or no role at this point.On the other hand, there will be cases,where a JSR "XYZ" developed under OpenJDK may be integrated in an Embedded profile
again, please stop speculating , thanks !I repeat my offer to have a call which clarifies your understanding about past and future ME aspects.This will probably release the email traffic .....most of them using different, ME-specific licenses (see JSRs 360 or 361 if you want for how they look like)Not sure, if the Spec Lead of such JSR will always have to declare all possible licenses and profiles their JSR could be used in the future by the time, a JSR is proposed?That is probably a good question to ask.Modularity, not just for ME will make this more difficult to tell upfront.WernerOn Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Werner Keil < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
According to this article http://www.fiercedeveloper.com/story/msa-defines-next-gen-j2me/2007-04-10Sony Ericsson's HSDPA Z750 was the only public device to support MSA, I can't say, if there was ever another one, or how well it sold, we'd be happy to hear evidence of a massive deployment of MSA on J2ME era devices, but I don't remember having heard about any.
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Werner Keil < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
Calinel,Thanks for the quick response. MSA was called defunct several times most regular in the EC, I am not the “factory” for these statements, just remembering them<wlEmoticon-winkingsmile.png>Would be curious to learn, which handset, e.g. by Nokia ever really used it? Mobile Sensor API, at least an “Optional JSR” for MSA btw. has never really made it into any of the phones.Had to seperately install it with a setup by Nokia, which even states “This is experimental, not Production ready, use at your own risk”<wlEmoticon-surprisedsmile.png>Of course, Kay wasn’t the only one for Vodafone, but you should know, he was a contractor, unless he didn’t tell it until later when we met on other occasions.We see many cases, where people who represent a company before, that (Vodafone probably isn’t interested at all or still member?) later join as Individuals. That may not be so in Kay’s case, but imagine someone who was in a similar position and joined as Individual Member after that, you probably get the point. The only notable case of a Spec Lead who joined as Individual, while actually being employed by a non-member AFAIK may be Bob Lee, but JSR 330 is finished and no follow-up work looks like it’s lead by him any time soon.WernerSent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:17 PMSubject: [JSR358 EG] Re: Fw: Re: [JSR 358 Observer] Re: Minutes from today's IP Working Group meetingWerner,you seem to own a "factory" to create confusions, see inline.CalinelOn Jan 27, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Werner Keil wrote:
One thing Calinel probably wasn't aware of, but occured at least for MSA, is, that one of the Spec Leads for Vodafone, Kay Glahn was in fact an external consultant, pretty much like an Individual acting on behalf of Vodafone in these JSRs and the EC for some time.Kay Glahn "was not acting pretty much like an individual" he was working behind the Vodafone signed JSPA and there were several Vodafone representatives for 248 not only Kay.
Constellations like these look interesting and could be relevant for the Individual Member discussion Bruno plansbased on the finalized 248 there were several products based on the RFIs created by MNOsAm 27.01.2013 20:23 schrieb "Werner Keil" < " target="_blank"> >:
Besides, while it is good to know, some Umbrella JSRs were lead by other members than Sun/Oracle in the past, hearing MSA (248) which was defunct and never resulted in actual products
or devices using it, with its successor (249) being Dormant doesn't make me feel very comfortable...Am 26.01.2013 02:06 schrieb "Werner Keil" < " target="_blank"> >:
Twitter @wernerkeil | @JSR354 | #Java_Social | #EclipseUOMo | #OpenDDRSkype werner.keil | Google+ gplus.to/wernerkeil
* Nordic Java NightHacking: January 31 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark. Werner Keil, JCP Executive Committee Member welcomes Stephen Chin's "Nordic NightHacking Tour" in Copenhagen* Social Media Week: February 18 2013, Hamburg, Germany. Werner Keil, JCP Executive Committee Member, Agorava Co-Founder will present "Enterprise Social using Open Source Frameworks like Agorava"
[JSR 358 Observer] [JSR358 EG] Re: Fw: Re: Re: Minutes from today's IP Working Group meeting
|Steven G. Harris||01/28/2013|
|Steven G. Harris||01/28/2013|
[JSR 358 Observer] [JSR358 EG] Re: Re: Fw: Re: Re: Minutes from today's IP Working Group meeting