The Java Community Process(SM) Program - JSRs: Java Specification Requests

Use of JCP site is subject to the JCP Terms of Use and the Oracle Privacy Policy

JSR #309
Media Server Control API
Public Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2008-10-07 to: 2008-10-13

These are the final results of the Public Review Ballot for JSR #309. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has approved this ballot.

Votes

SE/EE

Apache Software Foundation

Eclipse Foundation, Inc

Fujitsu Limited

Google Inc.

Hewlett-Packard

IBM

Intel Corp.

Lea, Doug

Nortel

Oracle

Red Hat

SAP SE

SAS Institute Inc.

Suleiman, Hani

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted

View Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2008-10-07 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-10-07 Intel Corp. voted Yes with the following comment:
This is a general comment we make in each ballot.  By the agreement that forms the JCP, other than reciprocity rules for licensing and three compatibility conditions (including passing the TCK test suite) "the Spec Lead agrees not to impose any contractual condition or covenant that would limit or restrict the right of any licensee to create or distribute such Independent Implementations."  The Apache Foundation claims in an open letter that they have been unable to obtain a TCK License that does not add restrictions on how compatible implementations of the SE Platform can be used (restrictions that are not in the specification itself).  The Spec Lead for this JSR says there are no field of use restrictions on how compatible implementations of this JSR can be used
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-10-07 Suleiman, Hani voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-10-09 Red Hat voted Yes with the following comment:
The spec lead of the EE6 specification has confirmed that the EE6 TCK would contain no "field of use restrictions", as originally raised by Apache with regard to another JSR (i.e. the SE TCK licensing). That is a good thing.

However, in the absence of an explicit JSPA rule that would forbid such field-of-use restrictions, we will remain worried that a similar issue might resurface anytime, for any JSR.

Consequently, in the future, for any submitted JSR (by SUNW or not), we will specifically expect the spec lead to provide clear information on that aspect and take the answer in account when casting our vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-10-11 Nortel voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-10-12 Lea, Doug voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-10-12 Oracle voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-10-13 IBM voted Yes with the following comment:
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. This comment is not necessarily directed at the current business or license terms for this JSR, however, it is a statement of IBM's preferred licensing model.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-10-13 SAS Institute Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-10-13 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-10-13 Google Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2008-10-13 Fujitsu Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------