mark at klomp.org
Fri Jul 6 21:26:36 UTC 2012
On Jul 6, 2012, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> 2012/7/5 14:31 -0700, mark at klomp.org:
>> I assume it is fine to post something
>> referencing one or the other (e.g. posting something like "I tried
>> implementing the FooBar property for all Baz classes as described in
>> paragraph 42, I won't post the code on this list, but it can be seen
>> over there in my public repo and is available under the GPL, evaluating
>> the included benchmark shows that... etc.")
> Yes. IANAL, but I would think that's perfectly fine.
OK, cumbersome, but that is what you get when the expert group
tries to stay inside the JCP with one leg. So it is fine for anyone to
create GPLed implementations from the export group discussions to
evaluate the proposed standard, but the export group then doesn't
want direct access to that implementation.
>>> The Expert Groups for such JSRs
>>> will hold their technical discussions in the open, for all to see. The
>>> specifications they create will continue to be licensed under terms
>>> similar to those used in the past , but no click-through agreement
>>> will be required in order to access specification materials.
>> I take this to mean that you don't need to agree to the terms that are
>> incompatible with creating a GPL implementation anymore just to read
>> the now public specifications. That is really, really useful. Thanks.
> You don't need to agree explicitly to the comment-and-evaluation terms by
> clicking on an "I agree" button. They're still there, though, whether
> you agree with them or not.
Sure, they are there for those who wish to play inside the JCP regime. The
terms are incompatible with the default GPL license of the OpenJDK project.
But you don't need to accept them and they aren't needed for people just wanting
to create implementations of the open public standard documents.
More information about the discuss