We (Lutris/Enhydra, partners with Bull/Jonas) have initiated
discussions with Sun. At the O'Reilly Java Conference in
Santa Clara (California/USA) last week, Sun's Bill Roth
spoke warmly of the Enhydra/Jonas effort and recognizes
that the license needs to address the needs of the Open Source
mechanism.
There's nothing to announce at this time. Folks are just rolling
up their sleeves on both ends to try to work out a reasonable
resolution.
David
Barry Middlebrook wrote:
> It seems clear to me that the word "non-transferable" means that you can not
> create your own version and transfer the Sun's license to whoever uses your
> EJB implementation whether there is money involved during the transfer or
> not. I agree with Wes that Sun has the right to revoke the license for good
> reason. It prevents splintering of the EJB spec into non-standard
> implementations. Sun's Viet Nam was the splintering of the Unix
> implementation and, no doubt, they still have the scars from it. So far,
> Sun's stewardship of a proprietary, but freely available language (Java),
> has been stellar. That is, with the exception of RMI moving toward CORBA
> compliance where they've been somewhat recalcitrant. It's still a little
> early in the EJB game so Sun may perceive this issue as a critical success
> factor. But I conjecture. The only way to definitively resolve this issue is
> for the spokesperson for Jonas to talk to the principals at Sun. Does anyone
> know who that spokesperson would be? Or, if they are talking to Sun?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 9:27 AM
> To: Karen Shaeffer
> Cc: Joe Gittings; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OpenSource and EJB spec license
>
> Hi all -
>
> We should probably not speculate in re: legal issues.
> But I would point out:
>
> - the right to make a clean-room implementation is not
> the right to distribute it
> - adding features does not change or conceal redistribution
> - the license prohibits distribution of sun binaries - ejb jar
> - there are other licenses - the spec, the binary downloads,
> the JDK (for the language) - which probably operate in concert
> - the license is revokable by Sun, so even if you could argue
> your way out of this one, Sun could change its mind.
>
> Personally, I believe Sun has done us all great service and
> does deserve to be recognized and compensated for it. The
> situation is not silly nor Sun's position arrogant. This
> is not the case, e.g., of an overbroad or obvious patent.
> Further, their community source program is in the open-source
> vein, and we need to encourage them that they can continue that
> program and co-exist with other open-source communities. Sun
> will be at the center of many initiatives over the coming years,
> and we should not inhibit Sun's community source project or
> taint other open-source efforts by making a few decision-makers
> at Sun believe the open-source community will disrespect
> licenses.
>
> my .02 - wes
>
> Karen Shaeffer wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 09:11:10AM +0100, Joe Gittings wrote:
> > > >From the Notice:
> > >
> > > "Sun hereby grants you a fully-paid, non-exclusive, non-transferable,
> > > worldwide, limited license (without the right to sublicense), under
> Sun's
> > > intellectual property rights that are essential to practice this
> > > Specification, to internally practice this Specification solely for the
> > > purpose of creating a clean room implementation of this Specification
> that:
> > > ....."
> > >
> > > All the subsequent conditions in this paragraph are aimed at ensuring
> full
> > > compliance with the spec and preventing fragmentation of the EJB
> standard.
> > >
> > > I don't see which bit of this prohibits an open source EJB server.
> Nowhere
> > > in the notice do they specify any restrictions on how the clean room
> > > implementation can be redistributed.
> > >
> > > Joe
> > ---end quoted text---
> >
> > The problem may be in the widely accepted notion that an open source
> program
> > is freely open to unrestricted derivation of the source code. How does
> that play
> > with Sun?
> >
> > c,
> > Karen
> > --
> > ----
> > Karen Shaeffer
> > Neuralscape; Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neuralscape.com
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > This list is cross-posted to two mail lists. To unsubscribe,
> > follow the instructions below for the list you subscribed to.
> > For objectweb.org: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> > include in the body of the message "unsubscribe ejb-container-group".
> > For enhydra.org: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include
> > in the body of the message "unsubscribe ejb-container-group".
> ----
> This list is cross-posted to two mail lists. To unsubscribe,
> follow the instructions below for the list you subscribed to.
> For objectweb.org: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> include in the body of the message "unsubscribe ejb-container-group".
> For enhydra.org: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include
> in the body of the message "unsubscribe ejb-container-group".
--
David H. Young, Chief Evangelist
Lutris Technologies, Inc.
1200 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA
http://www.lutris.com
http://www.enhydra.org
831.460.7310
----
This list is cross-posted to two mail lists. To unsubscribe,
follow the instructions below for the list you subscribed to.
For objectweb.org: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
include in the body of the message "unsubscribe ejb-container-group".
For enhydra.org: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include
in the body of the message "unsubscribe ejb-container-group".
