Apache Logo
The Apache Way Contribute ASF Sponsors

Formal board meeting minutes from 2010 through present. Please Note: The board typically approves minutes from one meeting during the next board meeting, so minutes will be published roughly one month later than the scheduled date. Other corporate records are published, as is an alternate categorized view of all board meeting minutes.

2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | Pre-organization meetings

JCP

15 Feb 2012

Dissolve VP, JCP Office

 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors had deemed it to be in the best
 interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's
 purpose to establish the office of "VP, JCP" and

 WHEREAS, that the office of "VP, JCP" had been created, the
 person holding such office to serve at the direction of the board
 as primary liaison with the Java Community Process (JCP); and

 WHEREAS, Geir Magnusson Jr. had been appointed to the office of
 VP, JCP and

 WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the board that this office and
 position should be dissolved

 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Geir Magnusson Jr. is
 relieved and discharged from the duties and responsibilities of
 the office of VP, JCP, and

 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the office of VP, JCP is
 dissolved.

 Special Order 7A, Dissolve VP, JCP Office, was approved by
 Unanimous Vote of the directors present.

15 Feb 2012 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

No report was submitted.

24 Jan 2012 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

No report was submitted.

21 Dec 2011 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

no report was submitted

AI: Geir prepare to discuss termination of VP, JCP at next board meeting

16 Nov 2011 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Nothing to report this month.

The board discussed whether or not this office should be continued. Geir is still trying to get licensing of the TCK's done. General discussion as to whether or not the ASF (as an entity) was going to continue to claim that Tomcat was a compliant implementation, and therefore continue to pursue obtaining TCKs on behalf of the ASF.

AI: Jim to bring this up on the board list.

26 Oct 2011 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Very quiet month.

Only actions in progress is trying to restart the process with Oracle
to get new TCKs.  Post-acquisition, it appeared that Oracle's legal team
was focused on revenue-producing activities rather than any JCP
obligations related to TCK licensing.  I've been invited to restart
the process and am doing so.

21 Sep 2011 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Continues to be quiet with nothing requiring board attention.

Community continues to actively use TCKs for those that we have
licensed, and updates to SVN repo of TCKs happened  (thanks Mark!).

Have reached out to Oracle again about getting new and updated TCKs -
there was a 'freeze' by Oracle legal a while ago and we may
be able to restart the process.

17 Aug 2011 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Nothing to report :) Community use of TCK materials and maintenance
going smoothly

Jim: Is this office still needed, since not much happens now that Apache is no longer a member?

20 Jul 2011 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Nothing of interest this month.  TCK support for projects is going
well, with all traffic on jcp-open@.  There are no issues that I'm
aware of at this time.

AI: Geir to update http://www.apache.org/jcp/ to reflect our current status with respect to the JCP.

15 Jun 2011 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Nothing to concern the board at this time.

There has been steady usage activity of currently-licensed TCKs.  ASF
community is self-supporting on maintenance of our TCK repo.  There has
been some discussion between MyFaces and Oracle re self-certification and
the MyFaces PMC is handling it.

19 May 2011

A report was expected, but not received

20 Apr 2011 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

No report was received.

16 Mar 2011 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

No written report was submitted, but a brief oral report was given. There was one request for a TCK.

16 Feb 2011 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Oracle as nominated "SouJava", the massive Brazilian Java User's Group, to
a seat on the JCP Executive Commitee.  Some phrase it as "Apache's seat".

I've offered to be a rep for SouJava :)

Other than that, things are quiet - the transition out of the JCP has caused
no major problems for our communities (that I can tell).

19 Jan 2011 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Nothing to report other than PMO is closing down our JCP membership, and current EC
members representing the JCP are working out what they have to do w/in their PMCs and
ECs

15 Dec 2010 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

The ASF formally resigned from the Executive Committee of the JCP
on Thursday, December 9th.  We also stated we are withdrawing
from the activies of the JCP - namely formal participation by
representatives of the ASF on the expert groups of JSRs.  The
message was clearly delivered, and I'm still working on some of
the administrative mechanics.

I believe this was the right move for the foundation to make,
although it should be clear that this is a disappointment to
all that have worked hard of the last 8-10 years to make the
JCP an open and transparent organization for creating Java
standards.

I'm very proud of how the ASF handled this, both as an organization
as well as individuals, and there continue to be great conversations
going on about this in the community.

Going forward, I'd like to remain as the VP, JCP in the near term
to continue handling our remaining JCP connection - JSR implementation
- as well as deal with further conversations with the community
and Oracle, as I expect both will continue for some time.

This was a major event in the history of Java, and I'm fairly
convinced that the story isn't yet complete.

17 Nov 2010 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Focus has been on one subject since the last report, namely the
upcoming JCP EC vote on Java SE 7 and 8.  In addition, I'm
pleased to report that the ASF has been ratified for another
term on the EC with a large show of support of the voters.

There has been a bit of interaction with the press on this subject
and overall, we've done well handling it.

We've put out a public statement regarding the ratification of the
EC seat, as well as a call to action for the EC regarding the
vote for Java 7 :

https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/statement_by_the_asf_board1

The vote has started today (Tuesday, November 16, 2010) and I
plan to :

1) Vote 'no' with an explanation of why
2) Engage the press on our 'no' vote and explanation
3) Write to the EC as a whole and provide a clear explanation/review
 of our position, mainly for those that are new to the EC or
 simply confused by the complicated nature of the dispute (as well
 as the calculated FUD).  I'll also publish this statement publicly
 as well.
4) Prepare a statement for publication for either possible outcome
 of the vote.

I also plan to do some personal blogging on this matter, and will make
it clear it's not the position of the ASF.

This has been a long and arduous journey for all of us, and I've been
honored to be able to serve the foundation in this manner.  Thanks to all
for the support over the years.  It hasn't been boring :)

20 Oct 2010 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

JCP Face-to-Face
================

Two weeks ago, I attended the quarterly meeting of the JCP EC in
Bonn, Germany.  It was an extended meeting - scheduled to last 2
full days - and the main agenda item was the ongoing Apache-
Oracle dispute over the TCK licensing for Java SE.  Since the
acquisition of Sun by Oracle, Oracle has held off giving any
response to the ASF regarding this issue.

At the meeting, Oracle stated that with respect to the ASF's request
for a TCK license for Java SE, they would be continuing Sun's policy
of refusing to offer a TCK license without the "Field of Use"
restrictions.  These "Field of Use" restrictions limit how and where
a user can use a compliant, tested version of Apache Harmony, and
further,  requires that the ASF notify users of these restrictions.
Obviously, such limitations aren't compatible with any open source
license, and thus we have to reject Oracle's terms.

In addition, Oracle announced that they were committed to getting
Java SE moving again, and would soon be filing JSRs for Java SE 7
and Java SE 8.  They further informed us that they will be moving
Java forward - if the EC doesn't allow those JSRs to proceed, they
would be moving Java forward in some other way.  (Another way to
interpret this is that the ECs votes really don't matter here.)

To summarize the ensuing discussion, it's clear that there is
quite a bit of support in the EC for getting Java moving again
and EC members are willing to support the JSRs when they are filed.
Many of the EC members see that the risk to Java not moving due
to the stalemate over the licensing is much higher than the
risk to Java by allowing Oracle to continue with its breach of
contract by not complying with the terms of the JSPA.  It's clear
that many who have supported our position will be voting for
the SE JSRs.  They still claim to support our position, but
various factors are forcing the switch in their vote.

I will continue to lobby for support of our position - that Oracle
isn't complying with the rules of the JCP, and therefore shouldn't
be allowed to create new JSRs until the problems are resolved.

There is an open question that needs to be resolved - there are
members that believe they can't in good conscience vote for a
Java SE 7 JSR because Oracle's behavior violates the JSPA, yet
they don't want to be put in the position to vote against the
resumption of progress in Java.  To that end, I've asked on
behalf of those members that before the JSRs are filed, we
(the EC) discuss that specific issue.  There is a conference
call on this topic right before the board meeting this week and
I can report on that verbally at the meeting.  To that end, I may be
a few minutes late (the call overlaps the board call by 30 min).

Re-nomination for JCP EC Seat
=============================

The ASFs 2-year term on the JCP EC is over in November, and Oracle
has re-nominated the ASF for the EC seat.  After consulting with
the board and membership, I've accepted the nomination on behalf
of the ASF.

Miscellaneous
=============

There has been a lot of internal discussion on board@ and members@
regarding the Oracle decision, the re-nomination, and our future
in and around the JCP.  I think that this is a healthy airing, and
will help us together decide on the road forward depending on the
Java 7/8 votes, the EC seat election, and related.

With the announcement that IBM will be moving its corporate support
from Apache Harmony to OpenJDK, there has been some concern and
questions on how this will affect the project, and further, speculation
on how this affects JSRs and the JCP.  I'd like to state that the ASFs
work on JSRs and the JCP is independent of any single project and any
entities contributions to a project.  On board@ we've been putting
together a public statement related to the IBM announcement, and it's
almost ready for distribution or release.

22 Sep 2010 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

late - will give verbal if allowed.  Nothing to report - no real
news from JavaOne.  Expect real news from the October 2 face to face.

18 Aug 2010 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

From a formal JCP POV, another quiet month.  There was a
JCP monthly concall and there's nothing to report.

Tangential to formal JCP activity, Oracle is suing Google
for patents and copyright that they claim are infringed by
parts of the Android stack.  This is relevant to us as
Google is a contributor to and user of Apache Harmony.

As there is ongoing discussion w/in the foundation I don't
believe there is anything appropriate to report as VP, JCP
to the board regarding this matter at this time.

Approved by general consent.

21 Jul 2010 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

There is nothing new to report - Oracle continues its internal
discussion and review of the JCP and their plans for it and
the Java community, and incorporated in that is the discussion
over Apache's Java SE TCK request.  There may or may not be
a JCP conference call today (Tuesday, July 20).

I spent a few minutes with Paul Krill of Infoworld providing
an overview and update of the situation with Oracle and
with the broader Java ecosystem in general.

The internal JCP TCK support system is working well.  We
have one outstanding license request to Oracle, but at the
moment, their lawyers don't appear to be looking at them.

16 Jun 2010 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Truly a sad month.

Bright side is that the new repo of TCKs seems to be working well, all
thanks to Mark and Daniel et al.

Dark side is that Oracle unilaterally cancelled the quarterly JCP
f2f meeting that was to be held next week.  I suspect that was a
great lesson to the new EC members in what the JCP is really about.

Dim side is that we've asked (again) for the EL TCK.  Oracle confirmed
receipt of the TCK license application, but internal sources tell me
that the Oracle lawyers won't treat it with the priority that the
Sun lawyers did (the best of which have either left or have been eaten
by the ORCA lawyers).

Also helped out with an article in The Register - key point is that
we can't let people think that the dispute is over if we get the
TCK under an open source license - the dispute is over whether or
not Oracle will allow us to test Apache Harmony with the TCK and
still distribute under the Apache License with no additional
terms or conditions, express OR implied.

Geir clarifies that this shows that the power of the EC is only to approve or deny JSRs.

19 May 2010 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Two things to report.  On the positive side,  the new approach to
managing the TCKs seems to be going really well.  Kudos to Mark,
Daniel for the main work, and lots of others for input.

On the down side, the recent JCP con-call resulted in no progress
on the Apache-Oracle Java SE TCK dispute.  Oracle continues to
claim that they are working on the issue, consulting with
others in the broader Java community, and need more time.  Our
frustration with this position is widely shared within the EC
as everyone wants to get this and related JCP bugs past us and
move forward.  My personal theory at this point is that  some
entity has some kind of significant claim on IP or a contractual
obligation that Oracle needs to figure out how to manage if they
do give us the TCK license.  I do believe that Oracle understands
the predicament that Java/JCP is in right now due to this issue
and they are putting up with a lot of pressure for a real reason.

On a final note, it was pointed out that 2010 is the year we've
discussed as being the year we move away from NDAs for materials
for project use.  I'm fully in support of this but would like
to get to the end of the current Oracle fight before picking a new
one.  It may be the case that the issue is moot - if we can't
resolve the Java SE TCK issue, I believe that will mean that
implementing Java technology in open source really isn't possible to
do in a safe manner, and the ASF should simply stop doing it.

A number of board members concurred with the "one fight at a time" approach.

21 Apr 2010 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Only board level issue was the recent (yesterday) discussion of getting
better service for TCK and related materials.  Daniel Kulp and Mark
Thomas have volunteered to assist, and have some good, fresh ideas on
what we can do with the new LDAP-based auth we have.  I look forward
to this situation getting better.

In the non-news section of the repot, Oracle is still pondering their
navel with respect to the dispute over the Java SE TCK license for
Apache Harmony.  They had expected to give us an answer at the beginning
of April, but indicated ahead of the JCP EC call that they had nothing
to report, so the meeting was cancelled as we have very little to talk
about otherwise.  Oracle's claim is that they are reviewing
and planning what to do with us in the context of a larger change
(or not) to the JCP and Java ecosystem.

Oracle has had a very clear public position in support of Apache's
assertions regarding the TCK license for Java SE, and I hope that
now that they are in the position to take real action on the matter
that they act in a way consistent with that public position
and put this matter finally to rest for the good of the Java
ecosystem.

Dan indicated that he is happy with the progress.

17 Mar 2010 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Spoiler : no progress on the Java SE TCK issue.

General : Quiet with standard traffic of TCK-related support for projects.

EC : Apache was the first 'no' vote on the Public Review Reconsideration
Ballot (the JSR failed the first Public Review Ballot) and was eventually
joined by Google, Doug Lea, Oracle, Intel, Tim Peierls and Ericsson.
This is notable (for us) because it was explicitly for technical reasons (they
had no FOU or other license issues), and also it resulted in the termination
of the JSR.  We voted no because the spec lead intended the JSR to go
into Java SE, and I felt that various factors such as technical quality
and completeness made this something that shouldn't happen.

We also had the first EC call with Oracle, the new Corporate Master of
the JCP, where Oracle provided us with an outline of their plans and
intentions going forward with the JCP, and a few words on the running
dispute with Sun/Oracle on the TCK license for Apache Harmony.  In short,
now that the acquisition is finalized, they are reviewing all pertinent
material related to the TCK, and will get back to us around the end of
the month or shortly after.

While this wasn't unexpected, I and other EC members did voice our
frustration over the fact that Oracle has had a very clear and supportive
position with respect to the Apache/Sun Java SE TCK dispute for a
number of years now, and we couldn't understand what they could possibly
be thinking about.

That said, I don't recommend any action until we hear from them around the
end of the month.

Geir confirmed that the Public Review Reconsideration Ballot was for JSR 275.

17 Feb 2010 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Two items of major interest this month.

First, the EU dropped it's opposition to the Sun acquisition by
Oracle, and as of last week of January 2010, Sun is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Oracle.  I understand that starting this week
or next, the transition of employees from Sun to Oracle will
begin, completing the process as we civilians would understand
it.  In terms of the TCK license, I've spoken to the Oracle
EC rep and he assures me that he's pushing for the issue to get
attention, but the process of digesting 25,000 employees and
several duplicate and new businesses has people preoccupied.
I expect that we'll get some information from them in the next
few weeks.  Don has promised he'd keep me updated, and I
certainly will be pressing on him for information.

As for other things, we've had a few TCK requests (updates) and
some new TCK requests, for which I'm figuring out who to
request from at Oracle.

20 Jan 2010 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

There continues to be activity and interest around TCKs, recently
around the shrapnel from Java EE 6 spec completion - servlets, JavaEE,
JPA, et all.  There's an request for the EL TCK, which I thought we'd
have, but Sun has now informed me we need to get a separate license
so I will do so.

I attended the January JCP EC F2F in Santa Clara.  I presented our
model of Incubation to the group - there's been some recent interest in
'incubators' as a possible way of helping specs get started, so I described
the Apache model in a session that included the Eclipse incubation process
as well as W3C.  I also gave an session to the newest EC members for both
ME and SE/EE on the Apache/Sun dispute.

Geir didn't see any significant shifts in EC member support.

16 Dec 2009 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Quiet period again - don't expect much to change until the ORCL/JAVA
merger completes.  Recent news reports contend that the EU
regulators are "softening" their stance.  I have no idea what this
really means.

Had the monthly JCP EC conference call.  Nothing of interest to
report.  Will attend the F2F next month in CA.

The ASF voted against a suite of JSRs related to Java EE 6, including
the Java EE 6 JSR as they are led by Sun, in accordance with the
ASFs policy that EC members that don't comply with the spirit
and letter of the JSPA should not lead JSRs.  There were two
press followups, one that was answered in writing with CC to PR,
and the second a 2 second phone call in which I confirmed the reason.

Other than the usual flow of requests for TCKs and updates, there's
nothing else to report.

18 Nov 2009 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Another slow month while the world breathlessly awaits the decision
of the EU re the ORCA deal.

JCP activity has been light - a few NDAs, a few TCKs.

There was an excellent blog by the CTO of SAP regarding the need for
Java to be free.

http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/weblogs?blog=/pub/wlg/16648

Open Foundation for JCP to be covered as a discussion item.

21 Oct 2009 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Like watching a beloved pet die, the stasis of the JCP continues.

There's very little to report at the moment.  Standard TCK
update support continues.

I attended the latter part of the monthly JCP EC conference
call.  Only thing to report is that it's business as usual
with regards to ORCA and JAVA.  I'll be presenting on our
incubator process at the next meeting along with Eclipse
as the JCP is exploring the topic.

23 Sep 2009 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

The hiatus continues - the JCP is for all intents and purposes
in a bit of stasis waiting for Oracle's acquisition of Sun
to complete.  The official line is that for trust reasons,
we're to continue to work as if nothing is happening between
the two companies.  It doesn't appear that anyone, including
the principals in the deal, is buying it, so we do very little.

I recently attended the quarterly Exec Committee face-to-face
meeting.  I don't recall anything of real relevancy to report
other than ME vendors working to try to re-establish life to
the ME platform.  In the age of Android where average
devices are capable of running a SE-like stack, I don't think
that they're on the right track, but that's not an issue for
us or our communities at the moment.

Other than that, it's been quiet.  There are random requests
for TCK support, we've completed a questionnaire from the EC
regarding the ORCL/JAVA merger, and recently received a
follow-up that I need to get to legal-internal@ and complete
this week.

Also, the agreement between Sun and the ASF regarding a blanket
fix to the Draft Spec License limitations is signed and delivered
to Sun, so that issue is closed.

19 Aug 2009 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

A few major things.  First, we've received implicit
approval from legal-internal for an agreement with Sun that fixes
the draft spec license problem in general.  The problem is that
the standard draft spec license limits distribution of the
implementations, and that's not acceptable to us.

Second, we've received and completed a questionnaire from the
European Commission's Director General for Competition regarding
Oracle's acquisition of Sun.  We have completed the document
on legal-internal and I have submitted the document back to the EC.
We've asked that we can publish the document in it's entirety, but
they've asked that the document itself isn't distributed.  I'll
find a way to publish our answers on the JCP section of the website.

Finally, Sun has delivered the early access version to the Java EE 6
TCK, which has been given to interested parties.

15 Jul 2009 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Very slow month.  Sun is in hibernation or brown dwarf or
whatever happens to suns when they lose energy.

The main outstanding issue is getting JPA spec license wording
resolved.  This is an issue that we've solved before, namely
with the Oracle-led Java Server Faces spec.

With that license, Sun worked with Oracle to change the wording
to remove the usage limitations of implementations.

Sun agrees with us in this case that the wording should be changed,
but haven't yet been able to secure a written statement to that
effect.  I will keep trying various ways to get this in writing.

Update 2009-07-15 : Sun has promised the necessary documentation by
fax today.

I'm eagerly awaiting the completion of the Sun acquisition by
Oracle so we can get a final decision on the Java SE TCK license.

Also, I spent a few minutes on the phone with an attorney working
for SAP who was interested in our POV on the TCK licensing
dispute.  I've had no other inquiries regarding that.

Jim re-confirmed that it was his intent to add W3C to the board schedule.

17 Jun 2009 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

The Apache Software Foundation was the recipient of the 2009
JCP Member of the Year Award.  This is the 3rd time we've
been selected to receive this, and I think it's nice
recognition for the work that we all do in the JCP, including
engagement and activism on the EC, direct participation in
expert groups, and building, testing and distributing leading
implementations of the specifications.

In terms of the Sun acquisition by Oracle and any news we have
from there regarding the future of the JCP or our current
dispute with Sun over the Java SE TCK, I can only report that
I have nothing to report.  Oracle practices exceptional
message control (except when Ellison speaks at conferences,
it seems) and so far I have no information regarding the
future.  Oracle has always been a prominently outspoken
supporter of our position and cause, and while I'm hopeful
that will continue in the future, remember that power comes
from the barrel of a gun.  They now have the gun.

Elsewhere, I'm still pursuing an action item to get the language
for the JPA draft spec license fixed - Sun is aware, Sun agrees
but an official letter or such has yet to materialize.  I will
keep pushing.

There are also some outstanding requests for updated TCK materials
which are being attended to.

Unrelated to the JCP, we discussed how to handle W3C reports. Jim indicated that W3C will be added as a monthly report.

20 May 2009 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Quiet month.  Two outstanding issues were getting the TCK for
JSR-196 and resolving a spec license wording issue for OpenJPA.
The former is complete, and the latter is in process - I've
heard from Sun that they understand and will fix, and am waiting
for a formal suggestion for the fix from them.

Last week was the quarterly JCP EC face-to-face meeting, this
time held in Hursley, UK.  I attended in person, and there is
much to report back.  It was nice to see the other EC members
again, Winchester is a lovely town, with buildings twice the
age of my home country, the IBM Hursley campus is a grand place
with a rich history, and that's about all there is to report.
I've asked Oracle if they could provide a statement or other
form of guidance regarding their intentions going forward wrt
Java, open standards, etc (IOW, the TCK...)  if their
acquisition of Sun does complete, and Oracle's representative
said he'll do what he can.  Both companies involved, as well
as other EC companies, are very concerned with ensuring that
business-as-usual continues until the aquisition completes,
if it completes.  (Translation : maybe we'll get something,
but it's up to Oracle lawyers)

In other news, the Apache Software Foundation was nominated for
JCP Member of the Year again.  Results will be announced at
JavaOne in the first week of June.

15 Apr 2009 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

In anticipation of Sun's "VP of all things Java" Jeet "Darth" Kaul's meeting
with the Java EC on 4/7/09, I proposed the following motion for a vote
by both the SE/EE and ME EC's :

Resolved: It is the position of the EC that:

 TCK licenses must not be used to discriminate against or
 restrict compatible implementations of Java specifications
 by including field of use restrictions on the tested implementations
 or otherwise.  Licenses containing such limitations do not meet the
 requirements of the JSPA, the agreement under which the JCP operates,
 and violate the expectations of the Java community that JCP specs can
 be openly implemented.

The vote was :

  SE/EE : 14-1 (with one vote not counted for process reasons)
  ME  : 15-1

I probably can't report the actual votes of each company since this was
an EC-level referendum, but you can probably guess who voted no on each EC.

After the discussion with Jeet at the monthly EC meeting, I'm starting to
seriously consider ideas that explore the concept of an alternative to
the JCP.

In other news, the TCK that there is a request for (JSR-196) has completed
the licensing process (it was lost several times inside Sun), and we
are waiting for the binaries.

I do have an outstanding issue re fixing the draft license for JSR-317 for
OpenJPA.  Apologies to all involved.  This is doable as we did it for
MyFaces.

18 Mar 2009 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

We're starting to see resolution to the outstanding requests for
TCK's from Sun.  The request for JSR-200 (Network Transfer Format
of Java Archives) was denied - it is part of Java SE and not
considered a separable TCK.  The request for JSR-196 (JASPI) has
been lost inside Sun.  I'm going to attempt to get the do-over
fast-tracked at the end of this week.  The request for JSR-311
(JAXRS) is complete and the TCK available to us.

There has been a bit of discussion in the community about the
Apache/Sun fight over the Java SE TCK, triggered by our "no"
vote for Java EE 6.   For example :

http://java.dzone.com/news/apache-and-sun-still-not
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/05/sun_enterprise_java_opensource/

Finally, I requested an EC vote on the following resolution to
take place immediately.  I expect it to be part of the public
minutes :

Resolved: It is the position of the EC that:

   TCK licenses must not be used to discriminate against or
   restrict compatible implementations of Java specifications
   by including field of use restrictions on the tested implementations
   or otherwise.  Licenses containing such limitations do not meet the
   requirements of the JSPA, the agreement under which the JCP operates,
   and violate the expectations of the Java community that JCP specs can
   be openly implemented.

This is in response to a simply awful article on Sun, Harmony and changes
in the JCP where Sun positioned the current situation as having EC backing
because the EC made the current rules.

 http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-03-2009/jw-02-opening-up-jcp.html

18 Feb 2009 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

A much quieter month than last.

1) As strange as it sounds, the ASF lost at least 2 allies in Sun's
recent layoffs with the departure of Onno Kluyt and Ray Gans.  While
they certainly executed the Sun official agenda regarding our struggle
over the Java SE TCK license, they did work internally to try to bring
about a sane resolution for us.  I'd like to officially note my
appreciation.

2) The problem with securing licenses for new TCKs from Sun seems to
be clearing up.  The license  process is moving forward.  We're still
stuck on what to do about a license for JSR-200 ("Network Transfer Format
for Java Archives") because it's part of the Java SE TCK and therefore
no separate TCK is available, but Sun is looking into it.

3) We have interest in ASF representation on JSR-294 ("Improved Modularity
Support in the Java Programming Language") from two people, Alan Cabrera
and Karl Pauls.  We'll try to get both on the EG.

Geir confirmed that it wasn't particularly "exceptional" to have multiple people representing the ASF on a single JSR, it's up to the spec lead.

21 Jan 2009 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Things of interest :

0) At request of the JCP EC from the last quarterly meeting, Onno
Kluyt of Sun and myself met in NYC to discuss the TCK dispute and
see if any forward progress could be found.  While we had a nice
lunch, and it's always nice to see Onno, nothing was achieved.
Sun still believes that it's critical for their business to force
us to post the NOTICE (implying, to me, that Sun certainly believes
that the NOTICE will materially affect our users - logically, there
could be no other reason for them to persist with this destructive
dispute.)  I iterated our position that we only distribute software
under the Apache License, and because the NOTICE would be adding
additional terms to that license, it was unacceptable.

1) Quarterly JCP EC Meeting : I attended by phone (there were several
that did).  Amazingly, the Apache-Sun TCK dispute is still a hot topic.
I reported the lack of progress from my meeting with Onno, and
participate in a general, sometimes heated, discussion.  I iterated
the following points :
 * This is an active dispute - it is not something of only historical
   nature, and thus any proposal attempts to fix Java SE licensing
   in the JCP must address current, active, ongoing problems
 * Apache's position is that implementors should be able to distribute
   implementations under terms that they choose, and Sun trying to
   limit the license under which the ASF distributes it's software is
   no different from Sun telling a competitor how much to charge or
   what markets are acceptable, neither of which would be tolerated.
 * Apache isn't looking for an open source TCK or the right to
   distribute the TCK to anyone else - it would be only for our own
   use in the Harmony project.  We have always worked with Sun's
   closed source TCKs under confidentiality constraints as
   specified by Sun.
 * Apache would have a tough time trusting any statements from Sun
   about future licensing as our experience with the Java SE TCK
   shows that while such statements may be made with the best of
   intentions, Sun has demonstrated that commitments may not be
   met.

2) TCK Access : We're having a little trouble getting new TCKs for
other projects.   I currently have 2 outstanding scholarship requests
and 1 granted request where the paperwork has been difficult to
complete.  I normally wouldn't bring this to the board's attention
as I am not looking for board assistance on this, but given the
tender nature of the relationship between Sun and Apache, I thought
I would note it for the record.  I plan to get to the bottom of this
and report back at the next board meeting.

Geir clarifies that in principle we would object to any NOTICE, but in practice a NOTICE that was limited to simple facts would have been accepted. In fact, we have proposed exactly that in the past, but such an approach was rejected.

17 Dec 2008 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Another quiet month.  Have one new TCK license to turn around to
Sun, and 3 (?) applications pending.

The ASF voted "no" for JSR 317 - Java Persistence 2.0 - because the
EG is led by Sun.  We indicated in our comment that our no vote was
due to our belief that Sun should not be permitted to lead JSRs
while it is violating the terms of the JSPA, the governing contract
of the JCP.

At the monthly EC call, we continued to discuss the Sun-Apache
problem, and it was strongly urged by the EC that I meet with Onno
Kluyt of Sun to try to find ways to move forward.  I indicated that
I was willing, as long as I didn't have to go to Albany, Schenectady
or any other -y town in New York state to meet him (he lives in
Rochester).  Doug Lea offered to drive.  More as it happens.  This
could be like a Zucker film.

Indications are that Sun executive management is currently occuppied
with their pending job cuts and eroding market cap, and thus my
request to meet with the replacement for Rich Green is unlikely
to get any attention for at least a month or two.

Finally - after the last EC f2f meeting, the terms of the Java SE TCK
license were made available to all EC members at my request.  Many
could not understand the problem with the NOTICE as it is deceptively
similar to the language found in the JSPA.  I've been challenging
EC members to take a harder look with their legal team and decide if
they would post such an item with their products and services at the
request of Sun.  So far, one of the major EC members who initially
questioned our resistance to post the NOTICE has publicly reversed
his position and is arguing on our behalf.

We discussed the new makeup of the SE/EE membership. No significant changes were anticipated.

19 Nov 2008 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Quiet month, not much to report.  Request for RESTful TCK
still pending.  There were a few requests for udpated
materials.

An issue came up with the MyFaces PMC regarding a draft
spec license from Oracle.  The license was taken from
old boilerplate, and had a FOU limit.  We discussed
with Oracle and they quickly fixed this issue.  Kudos
to Sun for facilitating and generally helping get
things straightened out quickly.  The new license has
been forwarded to legal-discuss for extra eyes, but I
think it's fine.

Sun's recent announcement of their reorganization of their
software division may present an opportunity for new
thinking and therefore progress on the Harmony TCK issue.
Hope springs eternal.

15 Oct 2008 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Generally things are quiet.  I applied for the TCK license for
JSR-311/JAX-RS for the CXF project now that the TCK is finally
available (takes some time after JSR completes).

There also is an ongoing challenge by Tomcat regarding the
JSP 2.1 TCK.  There's a conversation going on directly
between Mark Thomas/Tomcat PMC and Sun regarding this,
and for now, this is routine.

The Incomprehensible Battle Against Stupidity and Evil (iBASE)
(a.k.a.  WOFTAM - "Waste of ... Time and Money") continues,
with Sun standing firm with their continued refusal
to supply a JSPA-compliant and open-source compatible TCK
license for Apache Harmony.  This was the only subject of
any interest at the recent JCP Quarterly F2F.  There is a
growing recocnition that Sun's recalcitrance is causing
growing harm to the Java platform as a whole, and EC members
are eager for something to happen.

Other subjects of discussion at the F2F included a
transparency discussion, ironic both considering the source
(Sun) and the fact that parts were held under EC
non-disclosure.

I've proposed that we split the Java SE JSR into two distinct
JSRs, one for "Java The Language", which would continue to be
led by Sun, and a new one "Java the Platform", which would be
led by someone else.  This would allow the platform to evolve
to support the growing interest in better support for
dynamic languages, better partitioning of the Java runtime API
(e.g. what Harmony has already done years ago), etc.  Needless
to say, Sun isn't yet in agreement.

Geir verified that we would vote no on a JSR put forward with Sun as the spec lead for "Java The Language".

17 Sep 2008 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

There's really nothing of interest to report.  This is a combination
of end-of-summer doldrums combined with the disappointing stasis within
the JCP itself.

There are several of us on the EC that are still talking, still pushing
and still hopeful we can unwedge things and at risk of appearing histrionic,
save Java.

There's an upcoming F2F next week, and while I have no idea what we might
talk about other than rehash platitudes about adding "transparency" and
"openness" into a future JCP, I'm hoping we'll find a nice place for dinner.

I'll have more comments at the meeting.

20 Aug 2008 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

This was a very slow month.  We currently remain in a state of
deadlock.  The effect of this on those who know the details
as well as the overall progress of Java itself has been fairly
profound, and I'm looking for ways to get the information of
the history and status out to the community.

I've thought about drastic action that we could take - such as
exiting the JCP EC - but I think that given the reasons for
Sun's lack of compliance with the JSPA in this matter, I
don't think it would help.  The only thing I can think of is
a fall information campaign when the world gets back from
vacation and wakes up.  I also think that there are opportunities
for the Apache Harmony project, such as a runtime for OSGi,
cloud/grid computing, etc that are forward-facing and
fresh, but this is really a Apache Harmony community issue.

One thing of interest is that it's been discovered that by
the letter of the law, EC meetings don't formally fall under the
technical definition of Confidential Material according to the
JSPA.  We're discussing (well, were discussing - August is quiet
in Europe and North America due to vacations) exactly what we
may do about that.

As one of my actions, I've been trying to get some press interest,
and right now, it's clear that it's difficult, both from the
perspective of the time of year, as well as the difficulty in
finding enough sources of information.  I'll continue to work
on both.

Finally, Happy 2nd Birthday, Ongoing Apache Java SE TCK License
Application!

16 Jul 2008 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Short period, low activity, and little to report.

There was one phone conference call between the EC and
Jeet Kaul to disuss Sun's position from the business
perspective.  My impression, and feedback from other EC
members, is that it didn't contribute to any forward
progress.

Other than that, not much happened.  I took a break from
the battle over the license with the intent of resuming
at OSCON next week.  I'll advise the PRC of any material
actions that are planned or situational.

25 Jun 2008 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

On June 12, I formally told Sun that we are rejecting the then-
current TCK license for Java SE as it contained requirements
that were unacceptable to us, and in our opinion, incompatible
with the spirit and letter of the JSPA as well as open standards.

Yesterday, I offered for discussion on jcp-open@ the modified
version of Sun's own TCK license for Java SE for the OpenJDK
(and derivatives) community.  This is a slightly modified
version of the document that was sent to both members@ and
legal-internal@, the modifications being a tightening of the
copyright and notice clause specific to the TCK itself, as
well as some minor formatting.

The document, which is meant as an anchor for broader open
community discussion can be found at what I hope is clearly a
non-official link :

http://people.apache.org/~geirm/PROPOSAL-NFP-OSI-JCK-20080623.pdf

The message to jcp-open@ has been forwarded to both ECs of the
JCP, and I expect will be part of the JCK discussion at today's
monthly EC meeting.  I will update this report following that
meeting.

Aside from that, things are quiet - other than some discussion
with the MyFaces PMC and a representative from Oracle regarding
the TCK that Oracle will produce for the next JSF JSR, there
has been little activity.

Geir to work with the PRC to work out how to pro-actively generate press interest and awareness around this issue.

21 May 2008 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

(Apologies for delay - the quarterly JCP f2f is going on
at this moment, so was holding off as long as possible in case
I had something useful to report from it.  I don't.)

<sigh>

Still in the rabbit hole, we continue our discussions with Sun
regarding the Harmony TCK license.  I had a long meeting with
Jeet Kaul at Sun during JavaOne, and I continue to appreciate
his candor and directness, but am concerned about the ultimate
outcome.

We currently have a proposed license that contains a mix of
objectionable elements, including a kind of FOU limitation,
a notice requirement and some discussion on the version of the
TCK that would be licensed.  Honestly, I'm getting tired
of backing up.

The notice still doesn't conform to the "3 principles" that
have been articulated on internal (and soon to be external)
member and legal lists, so I haven't been formally wasting the
board's or member's time with the minutea.  My objective has been
to get Sun to clarify exactly what they are looking for, and
provide a reason (that I understand) as to why our original
notice counter-proposal was insufficient.

This week is the quarterly JCP F2F meeting, and I chose not
to attend for a variety of reasons in person, but did attend
for a period by phone.  Given the public nature of this report,
all I will report here is that the topic was discussed, and
still is of great import and interest to the EC as a whole.
I'll provide more detail during the board meeting.

As for next steps, I have two - probably final - ideas.  The
first will be to very visbily and publicly offer to accept
a trivially modified version of the TCK license offered by
Sun to the OpenJDK community and licensees.  The modifications
amount to little more than s/OpenJDK/Harmony/ and
s/derived from/not derived from/.  I plan to do this on
jcp-open and I think that this really is an issue for the
broader java community.

The second is to highlight the inappropriateness of the notice
for OSS in general by bringing the OpenJDK community into the
discussion and asking that whatever notice is required of us
will be required of OpenJDK and licensees (like RedHat).

I apologize for this taking so long - never in my darkest
moments did I imagine this could turn into the debacle
that this has become.

General agreement that Geir should pursue the approach outlined.

16 Apr 2008 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Over the last month, Sun offered the ASF a TCK license for Java SE
that while a step in the right direction, failed to comply with the
JSPA on a number of fronts and that nothwithstanding, placed
requirements upon the ASF that weren't acceptable.  Earnest
negotiation with Sun didn't make any progress, and currently
discussion has paused.  I expect that it will resume shortly.

In addition, Sun presented a positive proposal for changes in the
JCP at the last EC conference call, and  I look forward to working
to realize those changes in the JCP in a workable manner.

There was healthy discussion of all of these issues on the members,
legal-internal and Harmony PMC lists, and I am working towards being
able to bring these issues to the entire ASF community at some
point hopefully in the near future.

19 Mar 2008 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

This was a quiet month internally - there are two new requests for TCKs
that I'm in the process of working through.  There appears to be a little
internal confusion inside Sun for handling these that I will address
directly with Sun next week.  I have no reason to believe it is anything
other than organizational entropy within Sun.

The only news was the Sun presentation at the last JCP EC meeting, held
on February 26th.  I have forwarded the slide deck to the members@ list
with comments, and am engaging with the membership directly.  I think
that this is a good way to transparently report on confidential JCP
issues without the problem of them appearing in public board minutes.

20 Feb 2008 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

At the end of last month :

"I look forward to finally reporting something positive next
month."

I can only say that this has to wait until next week when the February
JCP EC call happens, as we have an unsusually long gap in the schedule
this month.  I am expecting a proposal from Sun on how to break the
logjam.  I have no expectations - tensds to help avoid disappointment :)

In other actvities, things have been quiet.  There was one request for a
TCK update  (Jaxws?), a few additions to people asking to participate
in various projects' TCK testing.

Approved by General Consent.

16 Jan 2008 [Geir Magnusson Jr]

Since the 19th of December, there isn't much to report due to the
general (and very welcome) slowdown.  The MyFaces PMC opened it's
TCK list to members of Apache Geronimo to assist with testing
collaboration, and so far, all appears to be working well.

The JCP EC held it's January conference call on Tues, Jan 15th,
2008 and while there is no tangible results from the December
f2f meeting, the dicussion related was promising, if not
positive.  It was made clear that all parties, including Sun,
understand the seriousness of the situation and the firmness
of resolve among many of the EC to resolve in a satisfactory
manner, and I expect that the February meeting will have
what has been described as a "positive" agenda item that
will result in forward motion.

I look forward to finally reporting something positive next
month.

Approved by General Consent.

19 Dec 2007 [Geir]

Things were generally quiet, with some activity around NDAs
and TCK access.

The highlight of this month was the quarterly JCP EC F2F meeting
held in Marlborough, a frigid suburb of Boston.  Held in a barn
heated by a woodstove in the corner, the closest seats to which
where appropriated and viciously defended by the repectable
gentlemen from IBM and the ASF, the meeting was very well attended
(probably the best F2F attendence in literally years) and has
been noted publicly elsewhere, the meeting concentrated on the
"future of the JCP".  Led by Doug Lea, it really was a refreshing
and open discussion.

Due to the letter and spirit of the confidentiality restrictions
of the event, I cannot report publicly any details other than what
I did, but will file a note to the members list later on this week.

As part of the discussion, I noted that for whatever reason, Sun
has not offered a JSR for Java SE 7, despite publicly talking about
such a version, and creating a project at OpenJDK to work on the
RI for the same.  Given that it has been 12 months since the
release of Java SE 6, it clearly was time to move with Java SE 7
in order to prevent Java from falling even further behind other
computing platforms.  I asked that Sun, as the spec lead for Java
SE 6, to please bring forth a JSR for Java SE 7 for vote by the
EC, and be sure that such JSR made it clear that there would be
no FOU or other restrictions that could prevent any independent
implementation from being distributed under the terms of choice
by the implementor.  Failing that, I noted that the ASF was
ready to lead or co-lead such a JSR, and if vetoed by Sun due to
their special rights under the JSPA, we'd lead JSRs to add
new features and extensions to Java SE 6 as non-platform JSRs.

More will be in the report to the membership, but I will report
there that I'm cautiously optimistic that things are moving in
the right direction.  I believe that while the JCP hasn't
"turned the corner", it's clear that it's recognized that
there's a corner to turn around, and there is clear activity
and movement to figure out if we can.

Note : while not directly related to the office of VP, JCP, I'd like
to approach SPEC to attempt to secure benchmark suites for Apache
Harmony (and other projects). If there are any objections or
suggestions, please let me know

A question was asked reguarding the cost of joining SPEC. Geir indicated that the goal was free. Justin noted that previous attempts to join this organization faltered on this issue.

Approved by General Consent.

14 Nov 2007 [Geir]

Oct/Nov was a very quiet period.  No progress can be reported on the
TCK issue.

I'm preparing for the upcoming F2F EC meeting in December, in which
this issue, and the implications about the present and future JCP
will be featured topics of discussion.

The Apache Harmony project asked on legal-internal about what they could
and could not do, in our opinion, with respect to releasing software and
using licensed TCKs for testing appropriate projects on top of the Apache
Harmony runtime.  The project was advised to release as they chose (as long
as they represented spec completeness factually), and further they could
use TCKs to test projects on the Harmony runtime.

Additionally, I'm happy to report that the Eclipse Foundation has been elected
to a seat on the JCP EC.

Greg will investigate whether or not the ASF should join Android.

Approved by General Consent.

17 Oct 2007 [Geir]

Geir was asked to recap the implications of the new ASF policy on non-harmony projects. Beyond the vote itself on JSRs which include spec leads that the ASF feels are in voliation of the JSPA, there are none. In particular, if a JSR passes despite the ASF's vote, a PMC may chose to implement that JSR (subject to the terms and conditions being acceptable), request TCK's, and participate in the expert group.

Approved by General Consent.

19 Sep 2007 [Geir]

The last month has been very quiet.  We have made no progress on the TCK
license for the Harmony project.

We initiated a motion for vote by both Executive Committees of the JCP,
the committee for Java SE and EE (Apache, BEA, Borland, Fujitsu,
Google, HP, IBM, Intel, Doug Lea, Nortel, Oracle, Red Hat, SAP, SAS,
Hani Suleiman and Sun)  and the committee for Java ME (BenQ, Jean-Marie
Dautelle, Ericsson, IBM, Intel, Motorola, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Orange,
Philips, RIM, Samsung, Siemens, Sony-Ericsson, Sun, and Vodafone).  The
vote was held by electronic ballot, and finished last week on Sept 13.
The PMO has not announce the results, but I tracked and published the votes
on the board@ list.  The vote went as we expected, and I am satisfied with
the result.   For the record, the motion was as follows, bracketed by
"-=-" :

-=-

This is a very important issue and the proposers of this motion
recommend that each EC member use the ballot period to review this
question within their respective companies and get whatever business
or legal opinions they feel that they need to get in order to come
back with a firm position.

Motion:  We move that the ECs adopt the following statement:

 "TCK licenses must not be used to discriminate against or
 restrict compatible implementations of Java specifications
 by including field of use restrictions on the tested
 implementations or otherwise.  Licenses containing such
 limitations do not meet the requirements of the JSPA, the
 agreement under which the JCP operates, and violate the
 expectations of the Java community that JCP specs can be
 openly implemented."

-=-

The results of the vote are JCP confidential.  However, I encourage all
interested parties to inquire with the various members of the executive
committees.  I also plan to ask each EC member if we can indicate their
vote on our website, either with their name attached, or anonymously.

Question was asked of Geir as to whether he expected Sun to change as a result of this vote. Geir seemed less hopeful than before.

Approved by General Consent.

29 Aug 2007 [Geir]

The main event of interest this month was the JCP F2F
meeting on Aug 16th-17th in Munich, DE.  Notes were posted
to the board-private@ list, and after discussion, posted
to the board@ list for general member consideration.

The key element for us at the meeting was our attempt to
measure JCP self-governance via the motion to affirm our
view that FOU restrictions are contrary to the letter and
spirit of the JSPA.  Due to lack of quorum, the motion had
to be submitted electronically.  The motion was submitted
yesterday after consultation with other EC members to clarify
and simplify.  The voting deadline will be 10 business days
from the date that the JCP PMO officially starts the vote,
which I expect will be today.  Therefore, I expect a result
by Sept 14 (adding 1 day for Labor Day, and 1 day for the
PMO not getting this started until tomorrow.  I apologize
if I have misled anyone about the timing - I didn't realize
there was a mandatory 10 business day process.  In all,
I think it's good as it gives time for internal consultation
by EC members, hopefully reducing their urge to abstain.

The public has been made aware of our motion via jcp-open@,
and to date, there have been no comments.

Other than that, things have been quiet.  There have been
two volunteers co-opted to help scale workload, and I'm
waiting for a response from Sun regarding my promised work
to narrow the scope of and clearly state the requirements
of the NDA for TCK participation.

The secretary was directed to update the contract with Jon Jagielski to mention "or other documents".

Approved by General Consent.

18 Jul 2007 [Geir]

The ASF has adopted the policy of voting "no" on any JSR for which Sun
is the spec lead, starting with the Java EE 6 JSR. This is the only
logical position for the ASF to take regarding this matter - we believe
that Sun is in breach of the JSPA and public promises, and therefore
shouldn't be allowed to start new JSRs in the JCP until the matter
is resolved.

The board should consider if the ASF should support or otherwise allow
official Apache representation in any such JSRs.

The JCP section of the ASF website has been updated with a short summary of
our the current status and effects of the open letter.  While we have not
received an official response from Sun, we do believe that the open letter
has alerted the community to the problem.  The most visible manifestation
of this is how EC members are using a commitment for a FOU-free TCK license
as a gating factor in voting decisions.  See the recent Java EE 6 vote
(http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=4306)

Internally, the board recently met to discuss a handful of issues related to
our JCP participation, as well as next steps in our Java SE TCK dispute
with Sun.  The  board has been advised of and is discussing the "going forward"
plan.

Further, after much community and internal discussion, the JCP program at the
ASF will be working to remove the TCK NDA requirement.  The current time
horizon for this is 2010, with the intention of the ASF engaging w/ the JCP and
the spec leads to find the smoothest and least disruptive path to this goal
for our communities.

Finally, it's become clear that the current distribution mode of TCK materials
isn't meeting demand, and this problem will be resolved through systemic
changes and broader community assistance by the next board meeting.

The JCK plan will continue to be revised on board-private and then the discussion will move to board@ in the next few weeks.

Approved by General Consent.

20 Jun 2007 [Geir]

No report provided or submitted.

16 May 2007 [Geir]

The Apache Software Foundation was selected by the JCP as the
JCP "Member of the Year".  We received the award at the annual
JCP awards ceremony held at the JavaOne conference on May 9.
This is the second time in three years that we have won, and
reflects the community's recognition of our broad and deep
participation in the expert groups, our multiple implementations
of specifications in opens source, as well as our drive at the
EC level to continually push the JCP towards more openness and
transparency.

In other news, Sun did not respond in any material way to our
open letter of April 10, 2007.  There was one official blog
response, but it didn't touch any of the issues raised in the
letter, but simply appeared to be talking around the issue and
pointing to unrelated things, like the their own open source
Java SE project OpenJDK.

We now must decide what to do for our next steps.  We are now
shining light on a every big bug in the JCP, and the big question
for us - as this bug shows that the JCP is incompatible with
open source - is if the JCP is able to solve the problem, and
if not, what should we do as a participant.  I think these are
two questions that can be discussed in parallel, but will resolve
sequentially.  To that end, I'd like to now ask for formal help
from members of the EC in solving this problem, and see what
rapid progress can be made.

Approved by General Consent.

25 Apr 2007 [Geir]

This month we took the difficult step of sending an open
letter to Sun Microsystems regarding our impasse in the
licensing of the JCK (the Java SE TCK) for Apache Harmony.
The letter was created with review and input of the membership
on the internal members list, and was posted for public
consumption on April 10, 2007.  Copies are available in
the foundation/Correspondence/JCP repository.  Copies
are also posted on the ASF JCP website
(http://www.apache.org/jcp) and there also is a FAQ of
relevant information.  We have asked that Sun respond
to the ASF in 30 days, and at the point, we've received
nothing but an acknowledgement of receipt by Jonathan
Schwartz.

In other areas, we continue to work in the ongoing EC-only
JSR-306 that is working to change the JSPA.  We continue to
push for a change that requires TCK license transparency.
Further, the new Java EE 6 JSR (JSR-313) was withdrawn
by Sun during the voting period due to questions regarding
licensing, including Field of Use.  Clearly the issue
of Field of Use is now in general awareness and important
to the EC members.

I'm happy to report that the ASF is once again a candidate
for "JCP Member of the Year", and results will be known
at JavaOne in two weeks.

Other than that, things are relatively quiet.  Projects are
using TCKs to certify their releases, and there are no other
significant issues to report to the board.

Approved by General Consent.

17 Jan 2007 [Geir]

 In general, things continue smoothly.  We have received several
 new TCKs for project use, including one from BEA.  This is the
 first instance of us using a TCK for which Sun wasn't the spec
 lead and licensor, and the process for securng the TCK was
 vastly simpler - a simple 2 page license with no negotiations.
 License as posted to legal-internal@ and met with no concerns,
 so we accepted and gave the releated TCK to the requesting
 projects.  A copy of the license is in SVN in the JCP section.

 In other areas, we are still negotiating with Sun regarding the
 Java SE TCK license (also known as the "JCK").  Discussions on
 appropriate terms seem to be nearing an impasse, with the
 current terms unacceptable to the ASF.  There still is one
 more avenue of exploration, and if unsuccessful, will need
 to escalate inside Sun, or beyond.

20 Dec 2006 [Geir]

 Changes to the JSPA : There is an ongoing JSR consisting of
 EC members targetted at modifying the JSPA for the JCP.  Of
 main interest to us is discussion surrounding "ex-ante disclosure"
 of all IP licensing terms for each JSR at time of JSR completion
 so that an implementor has a complete undestanding of any IP
 licensing issues they will encounter.  While the EGs confidentiality
 rules prevent disclosing details on the public board minutes,
 just note that it's of interest to the ASF, and I'm working to
 help increase the amount of up-front exposure required by the JCP
 process.

 General : Things are generally smooth, with nothign requiring board
 action at this time.  We have two outstanding requests for new JSRs
 (web services related).

 Java SE TCK : Negotiations continue.  There is little progress
 to report in the public minutes.  I've proposed a "two phase"
 approach in which we'd receive the TCK to get started under
 restrictive terms,  and continue final term negotiations,
 but haven't yet received a formal answer.  Current trend is
 negative, and have asked for a decision by 12/31.

15 Nov 2006 [Geir]

 Geir reported that there were no issues within the JCP
 requiring board attention at this time.

15 Nov 2006 [Geir Magnusson Jr. / Sander]

Report given during 'VP of JCP' Officer's report, above.

25 Oct 2006 [Geir]

 	  1) We have secured a few more TCK licenses recently, most notably :

         * Java EE 5 TCK license (used by Geronimo)
         * JPA 1.0 (Java Persistence API) TCK license (used
           by OpenJPA podling as well as the ORB subproject
           of the DB project)
         * JSF (Java Server Faces) 1.2 TCK license (for use
           by the MyFaces project.

         Further, we are currently working on the Java SE 5 TCK (for the
         eventual Apache Harmony project), which is on course for having
         identical terms as our existing Java EE license.  We have been
         granted the scholarship for the support for Java SE 5 and I have
         had one draft of the TCK license, so there is measurable progress.

         2) On the JCP front, the Executive Committee has kicked off a new
         effort for improving the JCP process, called JSR-306.  This is a
         JSR with the Exec committee members as it's expert group, and the
         goal is several changes to the JSPA and to the JCP process document.
         In summary, the goals are to

          * further improve the transparency of the process;
          * further optimize the average duration of JSRs;
          * how can individuals best participate in the process;

     as well as of a potentially more fundamental nature:

          * allowing non-Java implementations of a JSR's specification;
          * ability to create liaison relationships with other
            standards organizations;
          * easing the migration of pre--existing technology
            towards an agreed upon standard;
          * the availability of TCK and associated licensing
            information upon completion of a JSR.

         Currently, we've just kicked this off, so there's nothing really
         there to report, or engage the Apache community.  As always, I
         advocate friendliness towards open source licensing and open
         project governance.

         3) There was an outstanding issue with the Derby project from
         the July board meeting, where there was some concern about
         code for "JDBC v4" entering the codebase, and the constraints
         that various licensing regimes of the JCP placed upon the community.
         At the end of the day, the community did work it out to general
         satisfaction, and more importantly, I expect the DB PMC will
         recognize and proactively deal with similar situations going
         forward.  I have no remaining concerns here, and I don't believe
         the board needs to concern itself about this issue any further.

20 Sep 2006 [Geir]

 No report.

16 Aug 2006 [Geir]

 [ due this month ]

19 Jul 2006 [Geir]

 Geir reported that involvement in the JCP regarding JSR's
 has been active and healthy.  He also noted Harmony's intent
 to request and receive the TCK.  Geir brought to the board's
 attention the upcoming Geronimo release and some potential
 issues regarding Little G.

27 Jun 2006 [Geir]

 Geir noted that Sun has expressed interest in opening
 up the JSPA.

 It was also reported that Sun is using Derby as the
 basis for their JavaDB implementation. This resulted in
 code being committed into Derby that implemented a spec
 that was both encumbered as well as not publically
 viewable by all committers. The DB project will report
 on this next month.

24 May 2006 [Geir]

 No report.

26 Apr 2006 [Geir]

 No report.

15 Mar 2006 [Geir]

 Nothing of significant concern has happened since the
 last JCP report.

 The JCP EC has voted to advise the JCP Project Management
 Office (PMO) to allow for electronic voting of  non-JSR
 proposals (process proposals).  (I say "advise the PMO"
 because the EC can't actually tell the PMO what to do,
 just advise...)  The intent is to help get things done
 faster, as it doesn't require quorum at monthly meetings,
 or the inevitable delay of "let me go ask my lawyer"
 both of which conspire to take simple issues and turn
 them into many-month long marathons.

 In terms of JSRs, the ASF voted to support several new JSRs,
 some with controversy, such as the OSGi proposal from IBM.
 Comments and discussion can be found on jcp-open@apache.org.
 We are taking the position that we have an interest in the
 technology because we have a community implementing it, are
 interested in seeing bridges built between two technical
 communities (JSR-277 - modularity) and the new JSR, but we
 don't want to simply see an external spec "rubberstamped" -
 we want the expert group to have input.

 We have asked to join two JSRs : JSR-199, the Compiler API JSR
 and JSR-291, the OSGi JSR.  Torsten Curdt will represent us for
 199 (which is almost complete) and two members of the Felix
 community will represent us in 291.

 Current outstanding issue is getting TCKs from Sun for ActiveMQ
 (JMS) and ServiceMix (JBI) podlings.  Our app for the JBI TCK
 has been approved, but still need to get the License addendum
 completed (waiting on Sun).  JMS is proving more difficult, as
 there is internal Sun confusion about if the TCK can be separately
 licensed (it can) and what to do.  I've fought this battle before
 with them at Gluecode, so I'm pretty confident that it's just a
 matter of grinding it through.

15 Feb 2006 [Geir Magnusson Jr. / Jim]

No Report filed.

21 Dec 2005 [Geir Magnusson]

  This is the first update in joining the rotation.  I'll follow
  Cliff's style this time...

  EC : The Exec Committee front is rather quiet.  The main issues
       that have been pending before the EC are mainly procedural,
       such as discussion over whether or not the EC should allow
       electronic voting on "advisory proposals" that are not
       JSR related.  These are non-binding votes in which the EC
       "advises" the PMO (Program Managent Office of the JCP) on
       things we'd like them to do.  Another issue that has been
       in discussion for about 12 months now are the so-called
       "Purple JSRs", triggered by JSRs 235, 236, and 237, which
       attempted to couple existing commercial development activity
       in products to JSRs in a way that allowed  for the products
       to continue in parallel with the JSR.  The core issues in
       dispute were concerns about convergence with the eventual
       spec, concerns about IP licensing between the expert group
       members and the public before the spec was complete, and
       the rights of EGs to have legal agreements outside of the
       legal framework of the JSPA.  I stayed out of the core debate
       for the most part, and just ensured that "Open Source"
       wasn't abused as a motivation within these discussions, as
       it was attempted to be mixed into the issue list.  Our
       voting record over the last quarter was very good, and
       we voted positively for all new proposed JSRs.

  WEBSITE : There is a new JCP website now available at
       http://www.apache.org/jcp/ that documents (or is in process of
       documenting current practice and status.  This will
       continue to improve over time.

 INTERNAL : There is a new group of people interested in participating
       more in the ASFs JCP activities.  This group includes both
       members and non-members, and most discussion is happening
       at jcp-open@apache.org.  This is a very positive development
       broadening the support for out activities and getting more people
       participating in all aspects of this at the ASF.  In the
       New Year, I'll be taking better inventory of the projects
       that are implementing JSRs, and assist them in ensuring
       that claims of successful implementation are backed by passing
       TCKs.  One of the key elements of our solid reputation with Sun
       has been our respect for license terms of specs and such, and I
       wish for this to continue.   This is proactive - there is no
       indication that there are any problems at this point.

  JSR REPS : We've had a few additions in the last few months and a few
       changes.  We had resistance from one Expert Group as to
       a change, but this appears to be resolved, and should be completed
       this week.

  SUN ISSUES : There are two pending Sun issues.  The first is the
       recent set of statements from Sun regarding J2SE TCK IP and
       licensing.  We have held a [long] discussion with Sun regarding
       implications of their statements on distribution of our binaries
       and source, and a statement summarizing this discussion will be
       coming ASAP.  Internally, the preparation surrounding that discussion
       was held on legal-internal.  The second issue is regarding the
       so-called "tainting" of developers who have seen source code for
       J2SE under Sun's Java Research License.  Our efforts to have the
       license improved have been successful, and the license is now
       much clearer on residual knowledge.  However, there have been
       public and private statements from Sun that cast some doubt
       on this, and the intention is to clear it up unambiguously.  I
       believe that both of these issues, while focused on J2SE (i.e.
       Harmony) are applicable to all implementations of JSRs at the
       ASF, as well as any that have been available in source from Sun
       under their non-open source licenses.

20 Mar 2002

Java Community Process

    The following resolution (R1) was proposed:

    WHEREAS, the mission of The Apache Software Foundation is to
    protect the public's interest in the Internet infrastructure
    by fostering collaborative development and distribution of
    open-source software; and

    WHEREAS, a specification of an interface standard is often
    necessary to enable interoperable implementations to be developed
    by independent software projects, including those fostered by
    the Foundation; and

    WHEREAS, the content of a specification that includes implementation
    details, such as class specifications and method prototypes, may
    be restricted by U.S. copyright law and subject to terms and
    conditions of use that are not consistent with free distribution
    of open-source software; and

    WHEREAS, some vendors have used their copyright on such
    specifications to arbitrarily and capriciously exclude, to the
    detriment of the public, other participants in the specification
    process from implementing the very same interface standards that
    they helped develop.

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The Apache Software
    Foundation will no longer participate in the development of
    implementations or interface standards that cannot be completely
    implemented and distributed as open source software, without
    royalties or fees of any kind, by nonprofit and educational
    organizations; and be it further

    RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby instructs all
    Project Management Committees of the Foundation to review any
    and all specifications for which the Foundation's software acts
    as a publicly distributed open-source implementation and ensure
    that one of the following is true:

      a) the Foundation has right and title to all technology necessary
         to implement the specification and we have provided a license
         to others to implement it under the same or similar terms
         as the Apache software license; or

      b) the copyright holders have granted an irrevocable, no-charge,
         royalty-free license to any nonprofit or educational
         organization to implement the specification for the purpose
         of distribution to the public, where such license is
         sufficiently complete to describe all terms and conditions
         applicable to the specification at the time a copy of the
         specification is obtained;

    and be it further

    RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby instructs all
    Project Management Committees of the Foundation to correct any
    software for which the above conditions do not hold true within
    90 days by correcting the specification license, by modifying the
    software such that it no longer implements the specification, or
    by ceasing distribution of the implementation.

 Resolution R1 was proposed and seconded. The Resolution R1 was approved
 by unanimous vote of all directors present

 There was also much discussion regarding the role of the ASF in the
 Java community. It was generally agreed that the current situation
 was becoming more intolerable, and that the ASF was having doubts
 on whether an agreeable arrangement would be possible. In anti-
 cipation of possible events, the board authorized an amount not
 to exceed $2,500 (US) for the drafting and release of a Press
 Release or Press Releases detailing the ASF's position.