On Mar 27, 2:01 am, Michael Neale <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it is a deliberately controversial and cheap headline that > stephen used to grab attention to an issue.
I originally was giong to use "Java 7 is dead" but chose not to. I think my final choice has had the desired impact of getting people to debate whether they care if Java SE should be an open standard. > The JCP is a dinosaur of a process, lots of people aren't really happy > with the rate of progress. It reeks of democracy - fine for > governments, but design by the masses for a platform?? come on, not > everyones vote really counts the same (nor should it)... (I have no > idea how it compares to python PEP - would be interested for some > comments though by those that know it). I don't think many would describe the JCP as especially democratic! Each JSR is decided on in the end by the spec lead alone and the spec lead has all the power (they also get granted all the IP including copyrights and patents). The expert group has the official role of just guiding the spec lead. The finished spec is then voted on by the 16 member executive committee of the great and the good. The IP is only made available once an implementation fully implements the specification and passes the testing kit - see http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/a_question_of_ip. Incidentally, Sun has a veto on certain aspects of this process, especially around the Java ME, SE and EE specs. > I think if the TCK is opened up sufficiently then it would be less > controversial what is happening ? There is no requirement here for an open source TCK, thats a "nice to have". This is really about two things: (1) Open standards. Does the Java community care sufficiently to place pressure on Sun to keep Java SE as an open standard? (2) Abiding by prior agreements. Is the Java community willing to hold Sun to account for having broken prior public statements and legal agreements? Final point: Here is the text from the Java SE 6 specification, one of those in dispute: "2006.10.24 - 7. Nothing in the licensing terms will prevent open source projects from creating and distributing their own compatible open source implementations of Java SE 6, using standard open source licenses. (Yes, you can create your own open source implementation of Java SE 6 if you really want to. But we're also doing everything we can to make it easy for you to use the original RI sources! See http://jdk6.dev.java.net.) " http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=270 As a community, are we willing to hold Sun to account for breaking this extremely explicit statement? Stephen ASF member, speaking personally, neither a committer to Harmony nor OpenJDK --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
