|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/
Look at the bottom of the main frame.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
Testimony of Witness Dr. Mark B. Reinhold:
...
Mark Reinhold: Through the JCP. A Java Specification Request
(JSR) is put together. ... The JCP Executive Committee
oversees the process- ... Experts from IBM, SAP, Red Hat,
individuals. It works over about a 2-year period.
Mark Reinhold: As specification lead, I had to understand
and distill all information. ... A JSPA is required (Java
Specification Participation Agreement], which makes it
explicit that all the IP will be contributed. The work is
required to be original.
...
Cross examination of Dr. Mark Reinhold, by Google Attorney
Daniel Purcell
...
Q. Some of the Java APIs were done outside of Sun, correct?
And Sun doesn't claim copyright on those.
A. Correct.
Q. Some of the copyrighted APIs (e.g., java.nio) were also
done in collaboration with groups outside Sun/Oracle,
correct?
A. Yes, sometimes there are expert working groups.
Q. Of the 37 APIs, some were done in collaboration with the
Java Community Process (JCP), correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Has Google collaborated on some Sun APIs?
A. Yes.
...
RE Open Letter to Sun Microsystems by Geir Magnusson Jr.;
VP, Java Community Process
source of open letter :
http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html
Within it :
...
1) a specification lead cannot "impose any contractual
condition or covenant that would limit or restrict the right
of any licensee to create or distribute such Independent
Implementations" (section 5.C.III)
2) a specification lead must license all necessary IP
royalty-free to any compatible implementation of a
specification (section 5.B)
...
... "Sun's public promise that any Sun-led specification
would be fully implementable and distributable as open
source/free software. It shouldn't have to be mentioned
that fully implementable" includes passing the JCK, as
required by the specification license. ..."
In protest to Oracles conduct, Apache Software Foundation
has retired Apache Harmony since Nov 16, 2011.
Q Can the statements of this open letter be taken at face
value ? I mean are they accurate ?
Q Have the terms of Java Specification Participation
Agreement (JSPS ) evolved over the years ?
Q What JSPS agreements has Apache Foundation signed ? And
likewise Google, if any ?
Q Regarding relevance to the code and/or API specifications
Google has employed, do terms of these JSPS agreements
preclude transfer of any property rights ? ( copyrights,
patent licenses, use of trademarks )
Q Is the Harmony code encumbered ? Is Oracle in breach of
their JCP & JSPS obligations ? Does this affect matters ?
Q Is Google standing on thin ice relying upon estopple law ?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
