On Sunday 20 August 2006 12:27, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Aug 20, 2006, at 09:54, Chris Gray wrote: > > +1 to Stefano Mazzocchi: > > Noted, thanks. (and edited so I am making fair use of your > copyrighted material - I don't want to get sued...) My cat can be vicious. :-) > > The specs should be > > licensed in a way that is compatible with the requirements of > > standards > > bodies such as ISO, ANSI, ECMA, even if Sun doesn't intend to head > > that way > > just yet. > > Keep in mind that Sun doesn't get to decide this any more, it's up to > the JCP, and there are plenty of voices other than Sun who would > likely oppose this. While I sympathise, open sourcing Sun's Java > implementations has nothing to do with the JCP and is made possible > by the JCPA 2.5 and later. True, but quite often the spec lead is from Sun, e.g. for 218/219 (JavaME CDC/ FP). In such cases, if the Exec Comittee agrees Sun can set an example by licensing the specs in a way which would not preclude them being adopted as a standard by ISO & co. BTW the comments made by EC members wrt JSR 218 seem to indicate that there is quite widespread support for a more open approach[1]. Best regards, Chris [1] <http://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=1991>. -- Chris Gray /k/ Embedded Java Solutions BE0503765045 Embedded & Mobile Java, OSGi http://www.k-embedded-java.com/ chris.gray@xxxxxxxxx +32 3 216 0369
