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 #313
Java^TM Platform, Enterprise Edition 6 (Java EE 6) Specification
JSR Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2007-04-03 to: 2007-04-16

These are the final results of the JSR Review Ballot for JSR #313. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has not approved this ballot.

Votes

SE/EE

Apache Software Foundation

BEA Systems

Borland Software Corporation

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 2007-04-03 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2007-04-10 Suleiman, Hani voted Abstain with the following comment:
I'm abstaining currently awaiting clarification of the licensing terms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2007-04-09 SAP SE voted Abstain with the following comment:
We will need to get more clarification for the new proposed license terms which seem to require a license fee per Java EE profile. If this means a fundamental change in the Java EE licensing model, SAP may decide to vote "NO" on this JSR based on the proposed license terms. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2007-04-12 Intel Corp. voted Abstain with the following comment:
-- abstain while waiting for response to BEA and SAP questions.

We are concerned about the issue of field of use restrictions raised in the Apache Open Letter on Java SE TCK Licensing.  The Spec Lead has confirmed the Java EE TCK License will not contain field of use restrictions as described below.  We'd like to see that confirmed in an update to the JSR (like in JSR 312).

The rest of this comment describes a general procedure we employ as part of the determination of our vote.  We think the best approach is to make at least one alternative for the required licenses publicly viewable so that the community knows what is required to implement a spec. 

If there is not an alternative in which all licenses required to implement the specification are publicly viewable, we intend to ask the Spec Lead for confirmation that at least one alternative "does not impose any contractual condition or covenant that would limit or restrict the right of any licensee to create or distribute such Independent Implementations" other than the compatibility and reciprocity conditions described in the JSPA.  In particular, we intend to ask for confirmation that at least one alternative does not limit field of use of a compatible implementation (e.g. prohibit or charge royalties for distributing for use on particular operating systems or particular devices or for use in particular environments or require implementation of features other than what is required in the spec). 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2007-04-13 SAS Institute Inc. voted Abstain with the following comment:
Abstain until open issues are resolved as outlined in other vote comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2007-04-13 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 2007-04-16 Oracle voted Abstain with the following comment:
My understanding is that this JSR has been withdrawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2007-04-16 Lea, Doug voted Abstain with the following comment:
Abstaining on anticipation this will be withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2007-04-16 Hewlett-Packard voted Abstain with the following comment:
Our understanding is this ballot has been withdrawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2007-04-16 Google Inc. voted Abstain with the following comment:
Abstaining on anticipation this will be withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------