Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Therefore, according to OSGi documentation, we need a separate
CLA from every significant contributor to the code base before
we can distribute that code at Apache.
Hi, Roy,
1) You bring up a very good point that the OSGi Member Agreement
differs in key ways from the Apache CLA. To your original question
"Will all of the OSGi members be signing that agreement, or at least
those with IP claims on the code/specifications?" the answer is that
none of the OSGi members have IP claims on the code or specifications,
therefore we do not expect to need CLAs from any "significant
contributors." Although it is allowed by the OSGi charter (and the FAQ
on the website states members can even charge royalties!), in practice
it is not done, since the other members would balk.
2) Everyone on this thread is reviewing statements on the website and
the current specification related to version R3. Our intention is to
implement R4, which will be released shortly. The Eclipse foundation
went through this same debate, as they ship an open-source OSGi R3
runtime and, contrary to popular belief, they are not an OSGi member,
the Eclipse Foundation having officially spun off from IBM. The R3
specification "license" was meant to be very liberal, to allow
widespread adoption, but, as you note, it ended up not saying enough, ie
not explicitly stating your right to license this technology. Largely
due to Eclipse pressure, the next specification version, R4, will be be
clarifying the OSGi Alliance's position on this matter (so the
specification is widely adopted) and, in fact, the specification sources
will be released under the Eclipse Public License.
I am, therefore, confident that we will not have a problem leaving the
incubator w.r.t. licensing issues.
Enrique
