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 #333
Content Repository API for Java Technology 2.1
JSR Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2010-04-06 to: 2010-04-19

These are the final results of the JSR Review Ballot for JSR #333. 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

VMware

Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted

View Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2010-04-13 Ericsson AB voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-04-07 Keil, Werner voted Yes with the following comment:
The term "J2SE" must have been a Copy&Paste mistake in the proposal?;-) On some items like i18n I helped BEA to address issues in this area for WLP. This experience and my role in i18n efforts like Eclipse Babel mean, I'd be happy to support the EG in this area. Or others, since I helped BEA shape the precursor to JSR-170, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-04-19 Fujitsu Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-04-12 Red Hat voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-04-16 IBM voted Yes with the following comment:
IBM would like to see more alignment with CMIS

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 2010-04-16 Oracle voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-04-19 Intel Corp. voted Yes with the following comment:
This JSR doesn't have the problems described in the general statement below since the TCK is offered under an open source license.

--- general statement ---
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 restrict compatible implementations of the SE Platform (additional restrictions that are not in the  specification itself).   If it isn't clear from the ballot materials, we ask Spec Leads during each ballot if they have such restrictions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-04-19 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-04-19 Google Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-04-19 Peierls, Tim voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-04-13 SAP SE voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-04-13 Lea, Doug voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------