tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post3450197885209137901..comments2024-01-24T14:53:02.919+00:00Comments on Stephen Colebourne's blog: A question of IPStephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-79374504596695415752009-04-03T23:53:23.000+01:002009-04-03T23:53:23.000+01:00"There's no magical point at which it bec..."There's no magical point at which it becomes a 'release'." Yes there is - please read my blogs. I'm surprised that the point is hard to grasp here. Apache is following the rules, as laid out in the JSPA legal agreement. That says no releases that claim to be a compliant implementation of the Java SE spec are possible until the full process is complete. What you are downloading are alphas/betas, in the original sense of the word before Web 2.0 corrupted it. They are categorically not releases, and that is explicitly stated beside the download link. Just because I can download something doesn't make it a release.Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-61578960897309262182009-04-03T19:29:49.000+01:002009-04-03T19:29:49.000+01:00"..Apache Harmony will only be formally relea..."..Apache Harmony will only be formally released..."<br /><br />My point is that the term "release" is meaningless for a product like Harmony. There's no magical point at which it becomes a "release". If Sun at some point feels wants to sue, they can argue that it's already "released". But for you to assert "Apache can't release..." has no meaning. It's available for download now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-44626584420273870182009-04-02T11:56:08.000+01:002009-04-02T11:56:08.000+01:00@Tim, Necessary IP in this case explicitly means c...@Tim, Necessary IP in this case explicitly means copyrights, trade secrets and patents, and no one really knows Sun is holding on behalf of the Java SE expert groups. Thus, Harmony has this disclaimer besides its milestones: "These are builds of the most recent tested code provided for your convenience. They have been declared best-so-far but they are not official releases of the Apache Harmony project or the Apache Software Foundation.". So, yes. Don't expect a Harmony 1.0 until it is an official implementation of the Java SE platform spec.Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-61478136143920606392009-04-02T01:40:28.000+01:002009-04-02T01:40:28.000+01:00Here's a quote from the Apache FAQ: "'...Here's a quote from the Apache FAQ: "'Necessary IP' is the IP - usually patents - that cannot be technically avoided when implementing the specification."<br /><br />So presumably Harmony may be infringing patents (or other IP) because it hasn't been granted the IP. That would be true of the milestones as well. Does that mean Apache feels that a final release has to be free of such IP encumbrances but a milestone doesn't have to be?Tim Keithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-66426304038716716342009-03-30T22:25:19.000+01:002009-03-30T22:25:19.000+01:00@Andy, I'm not sure what I need to say. Yes, a...@Andy, I'm not sure what I need to say. Yes, anyone can freely download Harmony today. They can choose to run it if they want.<br /><br />But the code downloaded is not a compatible implementation of the Java SE platform specification (because it hasn't passed the process for becoming one, including the testing kit). And because it isn't a compatible implementation, there has been no grant of IP from Sun and the other expert group members (via Sun) to Harmony. As such, you would be running the code without the necessary IP grant. (Whether that bothers you depends on many factors I suspect, but it IS the legal position)<br /><br />To simplify this complex process for users, Apache Harmony will only be formally released when the process is complete and the IP is granted.Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-62598472011531006562009-03-30T16:21:53.000+01:002009-03-30T16:21:53.000+01:00"A 'release' is a final release that ..."A 'release' is a final release that is tested and has had IP granted"<br /><br />Circular definition, please try again.<br /><br />Whether you want to call it a "release" or not, Harmony can and will continue to do what they're doing now: making their software available for download and testing it as best they can.Andy Trippnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-36805820573250399282009-03-28T17:07:11.000+00:002009-03-28T17:07:11.000+00:00@Nathan, In the JSPA, trademarks are explicitly co...@Nathan, In the JSPA, trademarks are explicitly covered in a separate section to IP (copyrights, trade secrets and patents). Trademarks haven't been an issue at any stage in the debate.Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-55595205864212407962009-03-28T03:02:23.000+00:002009-03-28T03:02:23.000+00:00@Patrick IANAL, but trademark law is considered pa...@Patrick IANAL, but trademark law is considered part of the Intellectual Property arena, along with copyrights and patents.Nathan Beyernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-53829889548691500362009-03-27T17:32:47.000+00:002009-03-27T17:32:47.000+00:00@Andy, Patrick, Perhaps my blog isn't clear en...@Andy, Patrick, Perhaps my blog isn't clear enough to explain how IP grants work in the JCP, so I'll say it again.<br /><br />4A. Each member of the expert group grants a license to use their IP to the spec lead (Sun in this case).<br /><br />5B. The spec lead grants the collective total of that IP to anyone that fully implements the spec according to the 3 criteria.<br /><br />If you don't implement the spec according to the 3 criteria (including passing the testing kit) then you don't get the IP grant. Without the IP grant, you can't claim to be an implementation of the spec. Period.<br /><br />Bear in mind that the IP concerned here isn't necessarily just from Sun. It could be from anyone that has ever contributed to the Java SE specification. While you might not think of Sun as evil, are you sure that there is no IP (copyrights/patents) in the Java SE spec that couldn't be used in an evil manner by one of the non-Sun contributors? Apache won't take that risk.<br /><br />Remember also that the IP is the IP of the specification, not the IP of the implementation, (which is completely different).<br /><br />Projects, like Apache Harmony (and any other open source implementation of any other JSR) are permitted to develop openly, but they can only release once they pass the testing kit and gain the IP. Passing the 3 criteria is what "flicks the switch" and permits a release as a compliant implementation of the JSR.Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-42525934688803299022009-03-27T16:45:34.000+00:002009-03-27T16:45:34.000+00:00@Stephen: I don't see what the specification, ...@Stephen: I don't see what the specification, as defined by the JDK APIs, have to do with Sun's intellectual property. Presumably, if they did their homework, the implementation of those APIs by Harmony and Classpath developers is their own intellectual property. If Apache or someone else actually took code from OpenJDK, that sounds like it would raise intellectual property issues. I haven't heard anyone argue that merely writing an API is creating intellectual property, but IANAL.<br /><br />Secondly, I don't understand what you mean by "Apache can't release Harmony". It's available for download worldwide, and has been since the project was opened up. Ditto for Classpath. I assume that whatever part of Sun's IP you believe Apache would be violating if they declared version 1.0 of Harmony as a "release" is the same IP that's available today. What am I missing? What magic happens when they flip the switch from "beta" to "release"? What is the violation created in that situation?<br /><br />I think we all realize that Sun owns the 'Java' and related trademarks. But that's a trademark issue, not related to intellectual property. From what I understand, the dispute between Sun and Apache has to do with licensing the JCK and thus earning the right to call Harmony a 'Java' distribution. But as we both noted, that issue is tied up with private documents and discussions we don't have access to and can only speculate on.<br /><br />Regards<br />PatrickPatrick Wrightnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-39789373074169688052009-03-27T15:15:12.000+00:002009-03-27T15:15:12.000+00:00"If you read the blog again you'll see th..."If you read the blog again you'll see that Apache can't release Harmony - as it has no rights WHATSOEVER to any of the IP within the Java SE specification that has been implemented."<br /><br />Sun owns the spec, but of course anyone is allowed to implement it. <br /><br />"While you may believe that Sun won't sue, legally they can."<br /><br />Of course anyone "can" sue anyone about anything, so I assume you mean that Sun actually would have a reasonable case. But they wouldn't. No one is misusing Sun's IP by implementing a spec. As Patrick points out, the only legal issue is that Sun owns the "Java" trademark and has chosen to only allow its use if you pass the TCK.Andy Trippnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-76162328223792494462009-03-27T12:48:37.000+00:002009-03-27T12:48:37.000+00:00@Ismael, Apache implements 25 other JSRs. Many of ...@Ismael, Apache implements 25 other JSRs. Many of those have milestone releases. Your concern isn't a problem, and the JSPA specifically recognises open source implementations of JSRs, implying a recognition of continual open development. What matters is that the final release can only be made once certified.<br /><br />@Patrick, The key legal agreement is the JSPA which is discussed in this blog and is public. The main (only?) private item in question is the detailed terms that Sun offered Apache for the testing kit (which were different to the terms offered for the other 25 JSRs implemented by Apache).<br /><br />If you read the blog again you'll see that Apache can't release Harmony - as it has no rights WHATSOEVER to any of the IP within the Java SE specification that has been implemented. While you may believe that Sun won't sue, legally they can.<br /><br />Apache defends the safety of the code it releases very carefully - its one of the key features that makes Apache different to other Open Source groups, and why it is so widely trusted.Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-51853034313039730572009-03-27T09:27:43.000+00:002009-03-27T09:27:43.000+00:00Personally, I think it's unhelpful to have a d...Personally, I think it's unhelpful to have a discussion around the particulars of an issue where none of us, outside of the parties involved, has access to either the specific contracts in question (which in this case are private), nor access to the discussions between the parties. This is like speculating on how White House policy was really made by reading a book by a (possible embittered) insider, or a journalist who talked to an insider. <br /><br />As far as I know, Apache can release Harmony, they just can't call if Java. Sun has never, to my knowledge, threatened to sue either the GNU Classpath project or the Apache Harmony project, in all the years they have been around. What evidence do you have that they could or would sue? As far as I recall, the only stance Sun has ever taken related to these projects is that they can't call themselves "Java" until they have passed the TCK. Other than that, the projects can, and in the case of GNU Classpath, have been, very widely distributed and used.<br /><br />It's unfortunate that due to the nature of the legal documents in question, we can't see what the real legal issues are. <br /><br /><br />PatrickPatrick Wrightnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-35728676636578867922009-03-27T07:31:58.000+00:002009-03-27T07:31:58.000+00:00Is that true legally speaking? In other words, if ...Is that true legally speaking? In other words, if Sun wanted to sue because Apache it's using Sun's IP, would it be unable to do so because it's a milestone instead of a final release?<br /><br />IsmaelIsmael Jumanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-29953637236654790392009-03-26T23:46:10.000+00:002009-03-26T23:46:10.000+00:00@Ismael, A 'release' is a final release th...@Ismael, A 'release' is a final release that is tested and has had IP granted. A milestone isn't a release, its a milestone!Stephen Colebournenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-741750605858169835.post-71212428219437985702009-03-26T23:37:46.000+00:002009-03-26T23:37:46.000+00:00"As such, Sun cannot and will not provide the..."As such, Sun cannot and will not provide the required IP grant to Apache, and thus Apache cannot release Harmony."<br /><br />Out of curiosity, what constitutes a release? If I go to Harmony's home page, I see:<br /><br />"Apache Harmony 5.0 M8 now available<br /><br /> The Apache Harmony team are pleased to announce the immediate availability of Apache Harmony 5.0M8."<br /><br />Best,<br />IsmaelIsmael Jumahttp://blog.juma.me.uknoreply@blogger.com