[DRMAA-WG] DRMAA Java binding implementations : are there license constraints?

[Sill, Alan]

Yes, exactly. I agree also that a document or documents  describing the Java bindings would be in the best interest of all. 

Alan

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 4:09 AM, Peter Tröger <peter at troeger.eu> wrote:
> 
> Dear Erwin,
> 
> first, thanks for pushing the DRMAA specification by providing implementations.
> 
>> So to completely clear, the following would be ok for OGF & DRMAA WG :
>> - I (re)create the DRMAA v1 and v2 Java interfaces, in the org.ggf.drmaa package etc, as defined in the OGF documents
> 
> Officially, there are no OGF standards defining a DRMAA Java language binding. However, there is a Java API definition that is used by most people as starting point:
> 
> https://redmine.ogf.org/documents/11
> 
> Reading that document is nearly as good as reading the GridEngine DRMAAv1 Java API definition in source code.
> 
> Given that situation, you cannot be compliant to a DRMAAv1/v2 Java language API. You can only be compliant to the related root specs, which are official standards with a GFD-* number.
> 
> If you are interested, we could change that situation and make the results of your work an official OGF standard. I don’t know if anybody still needs a DRMAAv1 Java binding, but for DRMAAv2, it is definitely in our interest.
> 
>> - I add an explicit attribution to the OGF specification documents on which the interfaces  are based
> 
> In your case, that would be the DRMAAv1 root spec and and the DRMAAv2 root spec.
> 
>> - I add an Eclipse license header and my copyright for the code, both for interfaces in org.ggf.drmaa and for implementations in my own namespaces
> 
> That would be fine. There is only an OGF copyright on the API definition itself, not on the code you derive from that written text. And we have no such standard anyway, as explained above.
> 
> In short: The code is yours, you are free to do what you want.
> 
> The best way to be compliant (at the moment) is to compare your work with what is written in the C bindings. 
> 
>> FYI, the result would be promoted in the Eclipse Science WG, where Triquetrum is one of the science-related projects.
>> It might be of interest for the DRMAA and Eclipse Science WGs to reach out to each other?
> 
> Definitely. 
> 
> Thanks again for your efforts!
> 
> Best regards,
> Peter.
> 
>> 
>> many thanks once again,
>> erwin.
>> 
>> Op 28/06/2016 om 02:16 schreef Sill, Alan:
>>> Hi Erwin,
>>> 
>>> Andre is right. OGF IP rules - which are designed to promote reuse and derivative works according to their terms - apply only to the OGF documents themselves. There are many examples of open source as well as commercial implementations of these specifications. It is up to the author or authors of those implementations to set license conditions for their software, which of course cannot apply to the OGF document or documents that serve as the basis for such software.
>>> 
>>> For further information, please consult the links to the open public process for creation of OGF documents given online at OGF.org/documents or directly at the following link:
>>> 
>>> https://redmine.ogf.org/projects/editor/wiki/About_OGF_Documents
>>> 
>>> Alan
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 6:33 PM, Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Erwin, DRMAA-WG,
>>>> 
>>>> the discussion if APIs are copyrightable or not has, I presume,
>>>> serious implications for the work of most of us.  Specifically in the
>>>> context of APIs specified in the OGF context, I would suggest to
>>>> follow the no-copyright stance.  Mind, that holds for the API
>>>> *specification*, not the code which *implements* the specified
>>>> semantics!  But if I understand your inquiry correctly, this is what
>>>> you are asking about, and the implementation will be new code from you
>>>> and/or your project, right?
>>>> 
>>>> My $0.02, Andre.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:38 PM, erwindl0 <erwindl0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dear DRMAA community,
>>>>> 
>>>>> In the past I have bundled the DRMAA v1 Java binding API and the
>>>>> implementation for SGE as OSGi bundles, in the context of a pilot for the
>>>>> DAWN project (http://www.dawnsci.org/). ( For those interested, you can find
>>>>> the sources at https://github.com/DawnScience/dawn-hpc )
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would now like to migrate that work (+ a SLURM Java implementation we're
>>>>> finalizing) in an official eclipse project, Triquetrum
>>>>> (https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/technology.triquetrum). In the future
>>>>> my goal would be to do the same for the DRMAA v2.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As you probably know, Eclipse has rather strict open-source licensing and IP
>>>>> rules.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The API implementation I used before came with Son of Grid Engine, and still
>>>>> has the SISSL license headers, for which I am certain they will not be
>>>>> accepted by the Eclipse Foundation. I noticed that e.g. Gridway has its own
>>>>> org.ggf.drmaa sources with their own copyright and an Apache license.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I couldn't find any concrete info/requirements about licensing of the DRMAA
>>>>> Java APIs in your documents or on your site.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do you have specific rules? Or can I just write&provide the API code myself
>>>>> and deliver that with an EPL license?
>>>>> 
>>>>> many thanks for the standardization work,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Erwin De Ley
>>>>> (Triquetrum project co-lead)
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> drmaa-wg mailing list
>>>>> drmaa-wg at ogf.org
>>>>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> 99 little bugs in the code.
>>>> 99 little bugs in the code.
>>>> Take one down, patch it around.
>>>> 
>>>> 127 little bugs in the code...
>>>> --
>>>> drmaa-wg mailing list
>>>> drmaa-wg at ogf.org
>>>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> drmaa-wg mailing list
>> drmaa-wg at ogf.org
>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg
>