These are the final results of the Community Draft Ballot for JSR #177. The Executive Committee for ME has not approved this ballot.
JSR177
StageCommunity Draft Ballot
Ballot durationApr 29, 2003 to May 5, 2003
Votes

ME

BEA Systems
IBM
Insignia Solutions
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
Motorola
Nokia Corporation
PalmSource, Inc.
Philips Electronics UK Ltd
Research In Motion, LTD (RIM)
Siemens AG
Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB
Sony International (Europe) GmbH
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Symbian Ltd
Texas Instruments Inc.
Zucotto Wireless
Vote Log

ME

On 2003-04-30 Research In Motion, LTD (RIM) voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-04-30 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-04 Symbian Ltd voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-05 Philips Electronics UK Ltd voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-05 Nokia Corporation voted No with the following comment:
We are wishing the success of this JSR. The success is not based on the technical merits of the spec only, but has also to do with wide acceptability and predictability of the licensing terms used for the TCK/RI license.
The licensing model presented here by spec lead does not increase the predictability of the TCK license. And since there is no upper limit for the license expressed, it is not possible to judge the affordability of the TCK either.
I find it very difficult to vote against in this ballot, but am doing so for the purpose of having EC discussion about the principles used for licensing of the mandatory spec and TCK.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-05 Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB voted No with the following comment:
We do not have a problem with the technical specifications, but we have a problem with the proposed licensing terms for TCK. We agree with the comment from Nokia, and I would like to see a more simple licensing terms for the TCK. We would like to favour a one time fee and yearly maintenance fees for the TCK.
We encourage this type of simple licensing for TCK:s in general if the technology are to be widely used in the industry.
We would like to approve this JSR and this "No" vote means that we like to review the proposed licensing terms. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-05 IBM voted No with the following comment:
IBM was expecting much broader J2ME security APIs from this JSR.  The current APIs are driven by Javacard framework and do not fully address other J2ME platforms.  We would like to see this JSR enable broader security reuse by addressing APIs such as cryptography and encryption, across J2ME platforms.  This would provide better platform consistency and avoid fragmentation.

IBM's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and is not a vote on the licensing terms.  IBM supports licensing models that create an open and level playing field by allowing third parties to create independent implementations of Java Specifications and that do not allow individuals or companies to exercise unnecessary control for proprietary advantage.  We support open source as a licensing model for contributions in the JCP, and would hope others will support this direction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-05 Siemens AG voted No with the following comment:
Siemens also would like to see this JSR to succeed. But we also share the concerns about predictability of the licensing terms for the RI and especially the TCK license. 
This �No� vote does not address the technical specification. We would like to have the terms reviewed and start a discussion in the EC about the principals regarding this issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-05 BEA Systems voted No with the following comment:
BEA would like to see licensing terms for TCKs that are consistent with Nokia, Sony Ericsson, and Siemens AG concerns about predictable costs, as this is important to growth of the Java Community.  We also agree in part with IBM's comments about the breadth of applicability of this JSR draft. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-05 Texas Instruments Inc. voted Abstain with the following comment:
Although the draft accomplishes most of what is described in the JSR proposal, we don't believe that it should be approved without the context of a broader and more complete security package for all of J2ME. We would like some assurance that this JSR provides a sound basis for defining future security and trust services related APIs that extend beyond card services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-05 Insignia Solutions voted Yes with the following comment:
We are concerned with the business model proposed by Sun for 177. Although
we understand the intentions to cover costs and maintain the value of the
Java brand, we have concerns that a layering of OEM bearing royalties will
retard the adoption of Java standards by those that are looking for more
economical ways of reaching the market.

With the proliferation of competing platforms that have little or no royalty
burden on the OEM, and with the existence of a variety of proprietary
non-JCP ratified methods still in the market, we should seriously consider
the business ramifications that accompany the technical issues around a JSR.


A JSR that is not successfully implementable from a business perspective is
as damaging to the JCP as one that is not technically implementable.

We look forward to a modification of this business model in future revisions
of this JSR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-05 Motorola voted No with the following comment:
We are voting ?no? on this JSR because of the TCK licensing terms, but we support the technical specification as is. TCK licensing terms have previously been ?cost recovery? and we believe this should remain the policy. We prefer a one time fee and yearly maintenance fees for the TCK license terms. We believe that any more expensive approaches will inhibit the adoption of the APIs.

We hope Sun reconsiders its licensing approach and resubmits soon. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2003-05-05 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------