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 #48
WBEM Services Specification
Final Approval Ballot
Ballot duration: 2014-03-25 to: 2014-04-07
These are the final results of the Final Approval Ballot for JSR #48. The EC has not approved this ballot.
Votes

Arm Limited
Azul Systems, Inc.
CloudBees
Credit Suisse
Eclipse Foundation, Inc
Ericsson AB
Freescale Semiconductor
Fujitsu Limited
Gemalto M2M GmbH
Goldman Sachs & Co.
Hewlett-Packard
IBM
Intel Corp.
Keil, Werner
London Java Community
MoroccoJUG
Nokia Corporation
Oracle
Red Hat
SAP SE
Software AG
SouJava
TOTVS
Twitter, Inc.
V2COM
Icon Legend
Yes
No
Abstain
Not voted
View Vote Log

On 2014-04-03 Azul Systems, Inc. voted No with the following comment:
Azul shares the concern of others regarding the license terms in the submission provided.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-03 Goldman Sachs & Co. voted Abstain with the following comment:
As per comments from other EC members, The RI License is insufficient
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-02 Eclipse Foundation, Inc voted No with the following comment:
The RI licensing is inconsistent with the requirements of the JSPA to provide sufficient rights for commercial use of the RI. We hope the Spec Lead can fix this in a timely manner and re-submit the JSR for a Reconsideration Ballot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-07 London Java Community voted No with the following comment:
Voting No due to licensing issues as per other members comments. From a technical perspective, we see some problems, but believe it is better to resolve these with a 2.0 JSR than have this effort fail at the last hurdle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-07 Hewlett-Packard voted No with the following comment:
HP votes No due to the issues with the RI license.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-07 V2COM voted No with the following comment:
V2COM shares the concern of others regarding the license terms in the submission provided and asks for consideration of Red Hat's technical issues. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-07 Twitter, Inc. voted No with the following comment:
We share the concern of the other JCP members regarding the license terms
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-07 Fujitsu Limited voted No with the following comment:
The RI license needs fixing and the TCK Source Code should be made available.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-04 CloudBees voted No with the following comment:
After a 5 year long dormant period, this resurrected JSR needs to resolve licensing and potentially other issues before we can approve.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-03-28 Keil, Werner voted No with the following comment:
Until the open questions about this JSR raised by several EC Members can be answered, it seems this JSR may no longer meet the requirements of a "Cloud" era, and most of the mentioned platforms or OS (like Windows NT, even XP is just being phased out) are no longer supported. So are Java versions referred to, while the API has not been improved even to changes introduced by Java 6 or 7, hence it remains questionable, which JDK, Oracle still officially supports this JSR should run on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-02 Gemalto M2M GmbH voted Abstain with the following comment:
A number of concerns has been raised which need some time for clarification.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-02 Red Hat voted No with the following comment:
The Final Approval Ballot materials conflicts with the JSPA because it does not permit distribution of the RI. Furthermore:

- We do not believe that JAAS is being used for client connection association in a way which is correct.
- The management model appears to be tightly coupled to Java classes instead of being abstract/purpose-driven.
- Much of the functionality appears to duplicate JMX, with the excuse that JMX is now just a transport.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-07 Credit Suisse voted No with the following comment:
A number of concerns has been raised which need some time for clarification.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-07 Intel Corp. voted No with the following comment:
On 2014-04-07 Intel Corporation voted No with the following comment:
Intel shares the concern of others regarding the license terms in the submission provided.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-07 TOTVS voted No with the following comment:
TOTVS votes NO because the RI licensing is not compliant with the current JSPA. We believe that the Spec Lead will be able to fix it before submitting for a Reconsideration Ballot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-07 SouJava voted No with the following comment:
SouJava expects that the spec lead will use the time for the reconsideration ballot to fix the submission as others have commented. With that fixed, we believe this JSR can be approved. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-07 MoroccoJUG voted No with the following comment:
Until the open questions about this JSR raised by several EC Members can be answered By the JSR spec lead, as well as fixing the license issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-05 Software AG voted No with the following comment:
We vote No on this ballot due to the problem with the RI license. We hope the Spec Lead will address this and resubmit the JSR. If the issues are addressed in resubmission, we intend to vote yes in the Final Approval / Reconsideration Ballot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-01 SAP SE voted Abstain with the following comment:
Since initially voting yes, a number of concerns have been raised.  Until there is a clear resolution to those issues, SAP abstains.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-03 IBM voted No with the following comment:
IBM votes NO on this JSR because the submission provided by the Specification Lead appears to be inconsistent with the terms of the Java Specification Participation Agreement (JSPA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-03 Ericsson AB voted Abstain with the following comment:
Ericsson abstain from voting due to the issues found for this JSR. Ericsson will not vote against this JSR from being approved if/when those issues are solved but we do on the other hand see a limited value of the JSR from an Ericsson stand-point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-03-25 Nokia Corporation voted Yes with no comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-03 Freescale Semiconductor voted No with the following comment:
I'm told there are licensing issues that must be addressed but others are more involved in the details. In principle we have no issue with the spec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2014-04-04 Oracle voted No with the following comment:
Although Oracle has not been involved in this JSR's Expert Group for several years we believe it will be a useful standard and we support it from a technical perspective. We are unable to vote yes on this ballot due to the problem with the RI license but we encourage the Spec Lead to address this and to resubmit the JSR. If the Spec Lead does so we intend to vote yes in the Final Approval Reconsideration Ballot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------