Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: >> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: >>> Noel J. Bergman wrote: >>>> Wait ... why can't a specification be a releasable, just like a >>>> codebase? The only issue, as I see it, would be enforcement of >>>> compliance. And Roy even put forward a proposed license amendment >>>> for such things. >>> Which license amendment? The license amendment that I'm thinking of was >>> specific to JCP TCKs and how derivative works of a TCK can't be used for >>> compatibility - it had nothing to do w/ enforcement of compliance with a >>> spec.
> <grrr mail client changed?> Not for the past 6 years. Would love the chance, and still waiting for someone to get clueful about migrating Outlook in its entirety, and not just a piece here and there. I've got >4.5GB of mail to migrate, plus 1000s of contact and calendar entries. > > The JSR licemse, not the TCK license. > I don't remember a JSR license. I was referring to http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/JSR-LICENSE-2.0.txt, which could be adapted for the purpose. > > what else would you call the clauses forbidding the use of the > > trademark names, references to the specification, and restricted > > name space unless the code passed the TCK? > Dunno, but different than enforced compliance. Denying implementers the ability to use the specification's restricted name space, which effects the use of the API; make any reference to the specification; or use the trademark(s) is probably about right when dealing with Open Source. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
