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 #316
Java^TM Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 (Java EE 6) Specification
Final Approval Ballot
Ballot duration: 2009-11-17 to: 2009-11-30

These are the final results of the Final Approval Ballot for JSR #316. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has approved this ballot.

Votes

SE/EE

Apache Software Foundation

Eclipse Foundation, Inc

Ericsson AB

Fujitsu Limited

Google Inc.

Hewlett-Packard

IBM

Intel Corp.

Keil, Werner

Lea, Doug

Oracle

Peierls, Tim

Red Hat

SAP SE

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

VMware

Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted

View Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2009-11-30 IBM voted Yes with the following comment:
With the exception of the JSR 330 and JSR 299 injection support defined by the EE 6 platform, we believe that this new specification brings value to the industry. We remain concerned that the injection support defined by the platform will create unnecessary difficulties for the community. IBM will continue to support both expert groups in the development of a single integrated and extensible injection programming model. 

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 2009-11-30 Lea, Doug voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-11-21 Peierls, Tim voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-11-30 Intel Corp. voted Abstain with the following comment:
We were not satisfied with some of the information accompanying this ballot and have informed the Spec Lead.  No technical issues.  It's a good spec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-11-30 SAP SE voted Abstain with the following comment:
SAP had welcomed the changes made to the Java Community Process where "Spec Leads must provide complete copies of the licenses that they intend to use, not simply a summary of some of the terms" (quote from the JCP Process document http://www.jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2). This change to the process had promised to create transparency about the licensing of Java in order to prevent that Java is used for unfair business advantage against any particular party in the marketplace.

However, we are disappointed that Sun Microsystems as the Spec Lead of the Java EE 6 specification has not managed to produce the promised "full license terms" of the Java EE 6 TCK until the begin of the two week voting window for Java EE 6. Given the complexity of this license, we are unfortunately not in a position to complete a thorough legal review. At a minimum, we would expect that the TCK is not used to prevent access to the Java marketplace, including open source implementations. This JSR has been filed in July 2007; we believe there would have been ample time to share and discuss the proposed full license terms with the community. 

Regrettable, we will therefore have to abstain from the Java EE 6 vote. This is not a statement about the technical merits of the underlying JSRs on which we have voted separately, but rather a reflection on the transparency and efficiency of the licensing process managed by Sun as the owner of the Java Community Process related to intellectual property critical for todays IT landscapes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-11-18 Red Hat voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-11-30 Apache Software Foundation voted No with the following comment:
The Apache Software Foundation's vote is based on the point of view that this spec lead - Sun - is in violation of the JSPA 

http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html

and therefore shouldn't be allowed to lead other JSRs until the above matter is resolved. 

This vote is not a comment on the technical merits of the JSR.  If not for the issue of the spec lead, the ASF would have otherwise voted "yes".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-11-30 Fujitsu Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-11-30 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-11-20 Ericsson AB voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-11-30 Keil, Werner voted Yes with the following comment:
A few redundancies remain among certain parts of JEE6. E.g. annotations with similar names (this showed quite clearly during a recent demo by EG member A.Bien) or what I mentioned for JCA. Overall however an improvement over JEE5.

The license question and uncertainties by some members seem odd, but since all "relevant" JavaEE vendors with commercial server products out (except Apache) have voted here already, I don't see this as problem or reason to change vote either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-11-18 Oracle voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-11-19 Google Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-11-17 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-11-30 Eclipse Foundation, Inc voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------