Still I think it is time for a Jon style headline on the front page. Perhaps something with shock appeal like "JSPA Vote Screws open source and makes Microsoft look open" -- Just my opinion. Send a press release to CNET this time, they were quite interested.
-Andy On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 17:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Steven Noels wrote: > > > Sad, but true: > > > > http://jcp.org/jsr/results/99-7-1.jsp > > Do not despair - you got something good - some biggies being quite vocal > and supportive of a standpoint univocally attributed to apache -and- > generally considered as reasonable and lofty. And rightly so ! > > The above page, and comments, are public. And this will be seen and will > be picked up by the industry. > > Really - the pressure is all on SUN to fix things. And some big companies > have said in public that they expect tangible fixes. > > Good work guys ! > > Dw > -- > Dirk-Willem van Gulik > > > Comments From http://jcp.org/jsr/results/99-7-1.jsp: > > >From On 11-Mar-2002, Apple voted YES with the following comment: > Apple fully supports the issues that have been raised by Apache and > others, but the new JSPA represents a good step forward relative to the > current one. W On 11-Mar-2002, Apple voted YES with the following > comment: > Apple fully supports the issues that have been raised by Apache and > others, but the new JSPA represents a good step forward relative to the > current one. We believe taking this to community review may provide the > input that is needed to refine the JSPA before it goes to public review. > During the community review, we would like to work with the PMO to refine > the JSPA to better reflect the needs of those participating in open source > efforts. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > On 11-Mar-2002, HP voted YES with no comment. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > On 11-Mar-2002, Borland voted YES with no comment. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > On 11-Mar-2002, Fujitsu voted YES with no comment. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > On 11-Mar-2002, Oracle voted YES with no comment. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *** On 11-Mar-2002, Macromedia voted NO with the following comment: > The free and creative spirit of the JCP should be directly and clearly > manifested and protected legally. The major objections from the open > source community argue that this is not the case, and we feel that the > current language does not directly quell these concerns. We would like to > see the issues that Apache raises on behalf of the open source community > resolved in the JSPA itself before moving forward. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *** On 11-Mar-2002, BEA voted NO with the following comment: > After considerable soul searching, BEA has decided to vote NO on this > revision of the JSPA. While considerable effort has been exerted by all > concerned and significant progress has been made, we still are not > convinced that this JSPA would provide the level playing field we have > long advocated for Java technologies. The concerns voice by Apache and the > open source community is one avenue of concern as is the autocratic power > that continues to be vested in spec leads enabling them to attempt > mischief to obtain competitive advantage by controlling both the pace of > innovation and the availability of that innovation to the marketplace. > Unless and until these issues can be satisfactorily addressed, we prefer > to stick with our current agreements. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > On 11-Mar-2002, Caldera voted YES with the following comment: > Caldera agree with a lot of the concerns expressed by Apache. We would > like to see more to be done to protect the interests of open source > providers. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *** On 11-Mar-2002, Compaq voted NO with the following comment: > Compaq shares Apache's concerns and IBM's concerns that the JSPA proposed > revision provides insufficient protection for interests of open source > providers and competitors (as enumerated at > > http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-position.html). Compaq must therefor > vote no on this proposed revision > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > On 11-Mar-2002, IONA voted YES with no comment. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > On 09-Mar-2002, Doug Lea ABSTAINED FROM VOTING with the following comment: > I share most of Apache's concerns. However, I also think that it would be > useful to open this up to > > the scrutiny of all JCP members, not just the EC. > > These two factors cancel themsleves out, hence I > > abstain. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > On 08-Mar-2002, Nokia Networks voted YES with no comment. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *** On 06-Mar-2002, IBM voted NO with the following comment: > IBM has consistently worked within the Java Community Process since its > very inception to create a truly open environment with a level playing > field where no single vendor has the ability to exert unnecessary control > over Java technologies for their own proprietary advantage. While the > current draft of the JSPA is an improvement over prior agreements, we > believe we should do more to guarantee specifications, implementations and > test suites developed under this agreement will be developed with a > broader view of Java communities in mind, and to guarantee they are > licensed under terms and conditions that allow the widespread adoption of > compliant Java technologies. The JSPA amendments proposed under JSR 99 do > not provide these guarantees. > > > > IBM has always believed it is absolutely critical the Java community > include Apache as well as the rest of the open source community in order > to ensure the long term health and competitive vitality of the Java > environment. As a result, IBM is fully supportive of the open source > community's need for Sun resolve all the issues raised by Apache at > http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-position.html directly and > unambiguously in the JSPA agreement itself. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *** On 05-Mar-2002, Apache voted NO with the following comment: > Apache is unsatisfied the JSPA revision provides sufficient protection > > for our interests (as enumerated at > > http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jspa-position.html). While we and others > > have worked long and hard on the JSPA revision and believe we have > > made progress from the previous JSPA, we cannot support a legal > > agreement which does not unequivocably satisfy these requirements. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > On 05-Mar-2002, Sun voted YES with no comment. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- http://www.superlinksoftware.com http://jakarta.apache.org/poi - port of Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document format to java http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html - fix java generics! The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -Ambassador Kosh -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
