Skip to main content

Re: SwingX future?

No replies

----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: SwingX future?
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:58:29 PST

> > If you look at the
> > various Apache projects, and I think nobody can argue
> > that they are not
> > "truly open source", you'll show that you need to
> > sign a CLA
> > (Contributor License Agreement).
> I have looked at the Apache CLA. Apache's terms are quite
> different. Their CLA requires only that the contributor
> grant perpetual copyright and patent licenses. This is
> understandable as it prevents the project from being
> highjacked by a contributor withdrawing vital code or
> claiming a patient violation.
> The JCA, on the other hand, requires the contributor to
> assign joint OWNERSHIP of the code to Sun. That's the
> egregious part. That's the part that's kept me (and
> others) from contributing code in the past. That's the
> part that needs to be changed to make the project TRULY
> open. [Message sent by forum member 'sjakob' (sjakob)]

So, as I was saying, the point is about what is written in
the CA, rather than having a CA or not. Now, can somebody
please explain me which is the practical difference between
"owning the copyright of the code" (Apache CLA) and "owning
the code" (Sun JCA)? I don't see differences, but I'm not a
lawyer. I think that it's a legit question from sjakob, it
would be appreciated an answer from Sun itself.

Fabrizio Giudici, Ph.D. - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." - - mobile: +39 348.150.6941

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail: