Find JSRs
Submit this Search

Ad Banner

Summary  |  Proposal  |  Detail (Summary & Proposal)
JSRs: Java Specification Requests
JSR 99: Java Specification Participation Agreement

Stage Access Start Finish
Maintenance Draft Review Download page 21 Jan, 2005 28 Mar, 2005
Final Release Download page 04 Oct, 2002  
Final Approval Ballot View results 17 Sep, 2002 30 Sep, 2002
Proposed Final Draft Download page 13 Sep, 2002  
Public Review Download page 09 Jul, 2002 07 Aug, 2002
Community Draft Ballot View results 05 Mar, 2002 11 Mar, 2002
Community Review Login page 04 Feb, 2002 11 Mar, 2002
JSR Review Ballot View results 19 Dec, 2000 08 Jan, 2001
Status: Maintenance
JCP version in use: 2.1
Java Specification Participation Agreement version in use: 1.0

This is the major revision of the Java Specification Participation Agreement (JSPA).

Please direct comments on this JSR to the Spec Lead(s)

Specification Leads
  Jonathan Nimer Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Expert Group
  Apache Software Foundation Apple Computer, Inc. BEA Systems
  Borland Software Corporation Caldera Systems Cisco Systems
  Compaq Computer Corporation Ericsson Inc. Fujitsu Limited
  Hewlett-Packard IBM Insignia Solutions
  Lea, Doug Macromedia, Inc. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
  Motorola Nokia Corporation Oracle
  PalmSource, Inc. Philips Electronics UK Ltd Progress Software
  Research In Motion, LTD (RIM) Siemens AG Sony
  Sun Microsystems, Inc. Texas Instruments Inc. Zucotto Wireless

Updates to the Original Java Specification Request (JSR)

The Community Review ballot for JSR 99 was approved by both Executive Committees on 12 March 2002. The Apache Software Foundation gave feedback (in the form of a position paper). Read the Java Community Process Chair's response here.

Original Java Specification Request (JSR)

Identification | Request | Contributions

Section 1. Identification

Submitting Member: Sun Microsystems

Name of Contact Person: Jonathan Nimer

E-Mail Address:

Telephone Number: +1 408 343 1693

Fax Number: +1 408 343 1757

Specification Lead: Jonathan Nimer

E-Mail Address:

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
BEA Systems
Caldera Systems
Cisco Systems
Compaq Computer Corporation
Fujitsu Limited
IONA Technologies
Doug Lea
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.
Research In Motion
Siemens AG
Sun Microsystems
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.)


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.

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.