[jsr-314-open] mailinglist: looking for immediate action

[Jim Driscoll]

On 11/13/09 1:20 PM, Dan Allen wrote:
> Ah. I see. That makes sense. So to revise my statement, we don't need it
> for API discussions ;)

Maybe.  IANAL, but it's my understanding the JSPA has specific carve 
outs for things like discussions of possibly patentable technology, or 
(and I may be mistaken here) trade secrets.

Just because we've never used it doesn't mean we won't - but the JSPA 
protections only apply to signatories (i.e., JCP members), so a private 
list is also required for that function (if desired).

Please consult your local legal rottweilers for more information.  And 
since I'm not a lawyer, everything I've said above may be wrong - don't 
make any business decisions based on this email.  (This concludes the 
legal disclaimer portion of this email.)

Jim