OpenJDK Community TCK and EA TCK License Agreement V 3.0

[Donald Smith]

Inline.

Apologies if terse, sent from mobile device.

> On Oct 24, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have some questions regarding the new "OpenJDK Community TCK and EA
> TCK License Agreement V 3.0" [1].
> 
> In the "RECITALS" section, what exactly does "Java SE 9 Specification
> (or later, as indicated by Oracle in writing to you)" mean?
> 
> 1. Does the new license agreement V 3.0 also cover upcoming version of
> the Java SE TCK (i.e. 18.3, 18.9)?
Yes.

> That would be actually nice because it would free us from going
> through this process every six month now.
Thank you!

> On the other hand, how can
> "as indicated by Oracle in writing to you" be interpreted?
It means we will, in writing, inform you when a new version is covered.

> 2. Will Oracle automatically contact every signatory if new versions
> of the TCK will become available and grant them the rights to use the
> new versions as well?
For some definition of "automatically", yes.

> If question 2 will be answered with "Yes", there's a problem with
> section "7.0 TERM AND TERMINATION" which defines the term of the OCTLA
> with respect to "Effective Date" which is the date the initial OCTLA
> was submitted and signed. So for subsequent versions, the term will
> become shorter and shorter.
The initial term is as intended.  The term can always be extended, we have done this for some signatories on JDK 6.  So at an LTS if someone wants to reset the term, we can easily do so if mutually agreed.

> 3. Shouldn't the term of the OCTLA be defined with respect to the
> first general availability date of a TCK?
No, see above.

> Otherwise signatories who sign it later will get longer access
> compared to early singers. It could also lead to multiple singing
> requests. I.e. I could sign the OCTLA for JDK 8 once again now in 2017
> to get another 3 + 5 years coverage in addition to the 3 + 5 year I
> got in 2014 when I singed it the first time.
Again, see my comment above.  This has always been the case and we extend the OCTLA term as needed and mutually agreed.

> From the "RECITALS" section and the definition of "EA TCK" as
> "pre-release version of the TCK subsequent to the most generally
> available version of the TCK" I understand that a successful signing
> of OCTLA V 3.0 gives me access to all the subsequent version of EA
> TCKs.
Earlier OCTLA agreements did not permit EA access, so the OCLTLA TCK for 7, 8 and 9 were only available at GA.  Now we can give EA access to the gratis OCTLA like commercial licensees.  This is a great thing, finally.

> 4. Is it correct that a successful signing of OCTLA V 3.0 gives me
> access to all the subsequent version of EA TCKs?
When notified by Oracle in writing, yes.  It's an EA of the TCK 9 or later, as indicated by Oracle.

> If question 4 will be answered with "Yes" there's again the problem
> with the "7.0 TERM AND TERMINATION" section which effectively reduces
> the rights to use all the subsequent version of EA TCKs to 3 + 5
> years.
Again, the initial term is correct.  If there's a particular TCK you want a particular term on later, it can be discussed.  

> 5. Why doesn't the OCTLA V 3.0 automatically covers subsequent
> versions of the TCK in the same, simple way it does for EA TCK
> versions?
See above, you're presuming the ea is a separate thing from the TCK.  It's not.  It's the EA.  This now puts the gratis OCTLA on equal footing to the commercial agreements on EA access and versioning when indicated by Oracle, vastly simplifying things.

> That would drastically simply the access to the TCKs in the presence
> of a high cadence, six-month Java SE release cycle.
That's what we have done, thanks!

 - Don

> 
> Thank you and best regards,
> Volker
> 
> 
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/legal/OCTLA-JDK9+.pdf