Les autres ne s'en foutent pas royalement. Il suffit de lire les commentaires associés aux votes positifs.
Keil, Werner :
While I'm equally dissapointed with the ongoing license dispute and the effect this and other issues had on the actual content and scope of Java 7
SAP AG :
While we are disappointed that Oracle has decided to deny Apache a TCK license for Java 7, SAP's vote is strictly based on the technical merits of the Java 7 specification, not on its license terms.
IBM :
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.
Eclipse Fundation :
Eclipse is disappointed with the continuing issues around Java licensing. [...]
Our vote is based entirely on the premise that improvements and evolution are required if the Java platform is to remain viable.
Red Hat :
Red Hat's vote is based solely on the technical merits of the JSR. We believe that this JSR is important for the industry at large and that further delays risk fracturing the Java landscape further. However, we are extremely disappointed with the license terms and that a more open license has not been adopted by the Specification Lead.
Credit Suisse :
Credit Suisse's vote is purely on the technical content. We strongly demand open standards and an active community around Java as we selected Java SE & EE as primary pillars for our application development. [...] While we recognize Oracle’s intellectual properties around Java, we strongly encourage Oracle to re-think its current position around licensing terms.
A part VMWare, HP, Ericson, Intel, les membres se posent clairement des questions à propos de la licence.
Mais, de toute façon, le commentaire de Google résume bien ce qu'Oracle pense du JCP :
We were initially reluctant to vote no because we do not want to delay progress of the Java platform. But this concern was made moot by Oracle's statement at the JCP meeting of 10/4/2010 that they intend to move forward with the release outlined in this JSR with or without the approval of the JCP.
[^] # Re: Point chaud
Posté par Benoit . En réponse au journal Apache vs Oracle. Évalué à 10.
Keil, Werner :
While I'm equally dissapointed with the ongoing license dispute and the effect this and other issues had on the actual content and scope of Java 7
SAP AG :
While we are disappointed that Oracle has decided to deny Apache a TCK license for Java 7, SAP's vote is strictly based on the technical merits of the Java 7 specification, not on its license terms.
IBM :
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.
Eclipse Fundation :
Eclipse is disappointed with the continuing issues around Java licensing. [...]
Our vote is based entirely on the premise that improvements and evolution are required if the Java platform is to remain viable.
Red Hat :
Red Hat's vote is based solely on the technical merits of the JSR. We believe that this JSR is important for the industry at large and that further delays risk fracturing the Java landscape further. However, we are extremely disappointed with the license terms and that a more open license has not been adopted by the Specification Lead.
Credit Suisse :
Credit Suisse's vote is purely on the technical content. We strongly demand open standards and an active community around Java as we selected Java SE & EE as primary pillars for our application development. [...] While we recognize Oracle’s intellectual properties around Java, we strongly encourage Oracle to re-think its current position around licensing terms.
A part VMWare, HP, Ericson, Intel, les membres se posent clairement des questions à propos de la licence.
Mais, de toute façon, le commentaire de Google résume bien ce qu'Oracle pense du JCP :
We were initially reluctant to vote no because we do not want to delay progress of the Java platform. But this concern was made moot by Oracle's statement at the JCP meeting of 10/4/2010 that they intend to move forward with the release outlined in this JSR with or without the approval of the JCP.