Name of Contact Person: Jonathan Nimer

E-Mail Address: jonathan.nimer@sun.com

Telephone Number: +1 408 343 1693

Fax Number: +1 408 343 1757

Specification Lead: Jonathan Nimer

E-Mail Address: jonathan.nimer@sun.com

Telephone Number: +1 408 343 1693

Fax Number: +1 408 343 1757

Initial Expert Group Membership:
(Please provide company or organization names. Note that expert group members must have signed the JSPA.)

Andersen Consulting
Apache Software Foundation
Apple
BEA Systems
Borland
Caldera Systems
Cisco Systems
Compaq Computer Corporation
Ericsson
Fujitsu Limited
Hewlett-Packard
IBM
Insignia
IONA Technologies
Doug Lea
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.
Motorola
Nokia
Oracle
Palm
Philips
Research In Motion
Siemens AG
Sony
Sun Microsystems
webGain
Wind River
Zucotto Wireless

Section 2: Request

2.1 Please describe the proposed Specification:

The JSPA sets forth the basic legal structure according to which companies and individuals are to participate in the development and distribution of specifications, reference implementations and technology compatibility kits within the larger framework of the Java Community Process.

2.2 What is the target Java platform? (i.e., desktop, server, personal, embedded, card, etc.)

N/A

2.3 What need of the Java community will be addressed by the proposed specification?

An Ad Hoc Committee of the JCP Executive Committee has been meeting for several months to address accumulated comments and concerns with the JSPA. The Ad Hoc Committee has divided its efforts into "short term" issues, that could be addressed in a maintenance release of the JSPA, and longer term issues that require more extensive consideration. As a result of this process, a maintenance revision of the JSPA has been proposed for Community Review. The changes it reflects are modest, primarily editorial in nature, and will not result in signficant changes to the rights and obligations of Members in comparison to prior versions of the JSPA.

The purpose of this JSR is to further explore the more substantial issues considered by the Ad Hoc Committee (as well as other possible changes) which, if adopted, would signfiicantly alter the rights and obligations of Members in comparison to prior JSPAs Issues that might be addressed include:

(i) patent license/non-assert provisions with respect to a Member's own "Contributions";

(ii) patent license/non-assert provisions with respect to all other Members' Contributions, i.e. with respect to all "Output" of the JCP;

(iii) role of Sun as licensor and as licensee when Sun is not the Specification Lead with respect to a particular JSR;

(iv) are the current terms and conditions concerning "Independent Implementations" properly drafted;

(v) the desirability of retaining for a successor Specification Lead a license to the TCK developed by a prior Specification Lead that does not continue in that role; and

(vi) clearer statement of the purposes, and limitations, for which Confidential Information disclosed per JCP activities could be used.

The Ad Hoc Committee has also been concerned with maximizing consistency in the JSPA across the Java Community, especially with respect to any particular JSR, and the Expert Group will continue to explore ways that might achieve this result.

2.4 Why isn't this need met by existing specifications?

Under JCP 2.0, the Executive Committee is charged with acting as the Expert Group for evolving the JSPA. Thus, the current work of the the Ad Hoc Committee, both with respect to the changes proposed for the Maintenance Release and discussions concerning this Full Release, represents the first instance in which Sun and Members have discussed as a group, rather than in a series of bilateral negotiations, ways in which the JSPA could be improved for the good of the Community.

2.5 Please give a short description of the underlying technology or technologies:

Not applicable.

2.6 Is there a proposed package name for the API Specification? (i.e., javapi.something, org.something, etc.)

Not applicable.

2.7 Does the proposed specification have any dependencies on specific operating systems, CPUs, or I/O devices that you know of?

Not applicable.

2.8 Are there any security issues that cannot be addressed by the current security model?

Not applicable.

2.9 Are there any internationalization or localization issues?

Some member companies not headquartered in the U.S. have suggested that some of the JSPA provisions be reconsidered in light of the international make-up of the Java Community.

2.10 Are there any existing specifications that might be rendered obsolete, deprecated, or in need of revision as a result of this work?

Not applicable.

2.11 Please describe the anticipated schedule for the development of this specification.

The Expert Group, and then the Executive Committee, must reach a consensus concerning changes to the JSPA if any substantive changes to the document are to be made. Although it is imposible to predict whether this consensus will emerge, and if so in what time frame, work to date has narrowed the areas most in dispute. The EG proposes to report on its progress to the EC at each regular meeting of the EC either until a proposed draft is ready or until it is determined that a consensus will not be found.

Section 3: Contributions

3.1 Please list any existing documents, specifications, or implementations that describe the technology. Please include links to the documents if they are publicly available.

• Nov. 06 maintenance release

3.2 Explanation of how these items might be used as a starting point for the work.

The Ad Hoc Committee has already done a considerable amount of work, as reflected in the draft "Full" document. The Expert Group, which is expected to consist largely of the Ad Hoc Committee members, intends to build from this base.