These are the final results of the JSR Review Ballot for JSR #328. The Executive Committee for SE/EE has approved this ballot.

JSR328

StageJSR Review Ballot

Ballot durationJan 6, 2009 to Jan 20, 2009

Votes

SE/EE

Apache Software Foundation

Eclipse Foundation, Inc

Ericsson AB

Fujitsu Limited

Google Inc.

Hewlett-Packard

IBM

Intel Corp.

Keil, Werner

Lea, Doug

Nortel

Oracle

Red Hat

SAP SE

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

VMware

Vote Log

SE/EE

On 2009-01-12 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 2009-01-12 Sun Microsystems, Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-13 VMware voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-12 Intel Corp. voted Yes with the following comment:
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 ).  

Because of this issue, we ask Spec Leads for each JSR that comes to ballot whether they add restrictions on use of the spec.  As for all of the OSS/J specs, the TCK License is the same as for other OSS/J JSRs and is available for review by the public (see the JSRs public page).  We thank the Spec Leads for making licensing for the specification public so the community knows the specs can be implemented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-13 Keil, Werner voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-20 SAP SE voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-14 Ericsson AB voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-19 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-20 IBM voted Yes with the following comment:
IBM's supports this JSR for OSS/J specific scenarios.

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 2009-01-19 Fujitsu Limited voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-20 Oracle voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2009-01-20 Google Inc. voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------