'we have a separate call queued up on Java legal matters'

Submitted by LSB List on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 16:00.

Posted to the lsb-discuss mailing list by: R P Herrold

per Ted on today's call Similarly a reference that Dalibor had sent an email on Java matters this morning, but which I did not receive, and which does not show in the piperlail archive. May I have details on both, and an invite as to the former? While I will not squawk as to a 'trial use' java requirement inclusion, which drags in the NDA and indemnification covered code, a last minute addition 'flipping the switch' beyind that is not something the LSB as a community have 'reached consensus' on: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSB_Charter 'The Linux Standard Base (LSB) is a Linux Foundation (LF) project to develop, through consensus, a set of standards' Clearly both I, and Alan Cox, have expressed, and documented serious bases for reservation out of Java full inclusion. -- Russ herrold

'we have a separate call queued up on Java legal matters' - Submitted by LSB List on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 17:15.

Submitted by LSB List on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 17:15.

Posted to the lsb-discuss mailing list by: Dalibor Topic

On 27/08/2008 17:50, R P Herrold wrote:
> per Ted on today's call
>
> Similarly a reference that Dalibor had sent an email on Java
> matters this morning, but which I did not receive, and which
> does not show in the piperlail archive.
>
> May I have details on both, and an invite as to the former?
>
It was an off-list mail to Ron about the latest draft in the database,
the text was:

"Thanks for the updates, here are a a few remaining things I saw with
the second draft:

The portion copyright information should include Sun Microsystems, and
the trademark section should mention Java.
One thing I'm not sure about is that the java interpreter man page used
in parts in a section of the document is licensed under the GPL, so
licensing the document under GFDL seems like an odd choice - I assume
the mechanics of that combination are handled through the 'These
excerpts are being used in accordance with their respective licenses.'
text?"

I assume I could also have put it in the bugtracker entry for it, but I
don't know whether those show up on this list, though.

Jeff and others have asked (minutes say 6th August I think) about
getting in touch with the right people to get involved to discuss the
issues you and others have collected, the phone call Ted mentioned would
be that.

cheers,
dalibor topic

--
*******************************************************************
Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738
Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim
Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192
Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net
D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic@sun.com
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Bömer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring

'we have a separate call queued up on Java legal matters' - Submitted by LSB List on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 18:30.

Submitted by LSB List on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 18:30.

Posted to the lsb-discuss mailing list by: R P Herrold

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Dalibor Topic wrote:

>> May I have details on both, and an invite as to the former?

> Jeff and others have asked (minutes say 6th August I think)
> about getting in touch with the right people to get involved
> to discuss the issues you and others have collected, the
> phone call Ted mentioned would be that.

Thank you, Dalibor. I had assumed as much, but appreciate
confirmation.

I hold the opinion that I am a contributor to the LSB, and
have been for many years; because of the seeming 'impedance
mismatch' in the undrestanding of some in that mailing list
thread on my post, and Alan's, I am concerned that the call be
inclusive.

-- Russ herrold

'we have a separate call queued up on Java legal matters'

Community Support

Active forum topics

About the Author