Not sure I'm following Mark, EPL is fine for us ( https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html) and G spec jars are not officially certified so don't change of license anytime.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le mer. 4 sept. 2019 à 15:07, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> a écrit : > No, before that it was CDDL+GPL. It just moved to EPL, which is also CatB > > LieGrue, > strub > > > Am 04.09.2019 um 15:06 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com > >: > > > > @Mark: didn't change with jakarta donation? can you open a ticket on > > jakartee tracker please? > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > < > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > Le mer. 4 sept. 2019 à 15:04, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> a écrit > : > > > >> No, this is an intended situation. > >> When one fully passes the TCK then you get the EFSL. This 'removes' the > >> copyleft nature of the EPL. > >> The details are quite nested in the legal papers, but that's it > basically. > >> > >> If we just upgrade our existing API to be binary compat then we have no > IP > >> issues. > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >>> Am 03.09.2019 um 16:37 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com > >>> : > >>> > >>> MP license is ok (Apache2) but Jakarta is EPLs so keeps the ambiguity > >> for us. > >>> That said it is good to reuse the same GAV for end users so we might > ask > >> jakarta to double license its api jars? > >>> > >>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book > >>> > >>> > >>> Le mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:33, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > >> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> a écrit : > >>> Yep that was the point. > >>> So I was asking if we should do the same yes or not. > >>> > >>> That seems to be your opinion Romain. > >>> Mark on the other end is having some doubts about the license. > >>> -- > >>> Jean-Louis Monteiro > >>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > >>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:31 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> Le mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:29, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > >> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> > >>> a écrit : > >>> > >>>> Thanks Romain. I'm fine with using Eclipse jars if from a legal point > >> of > >>>> view, it works. > >>>> Otherwise, I'd like to split our spec jars. > >>>> > >>>> What about MicroProfile? > >>>> > >>> > >>> We already agreed to not redo the API and use microprofile jars. > >>> > >>> > >>>> It's the same license and we are using them in our MicroProfile > >>>> implementations. > >>>> -- > >>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro > >>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > >>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:26 PM Mark Struberg > <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid > >>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> depends what their license is. EPL is (weak) copyleft. Thus I would > >> like > >>>>> to avoid exposing it downstream as api. > >>>>> > >>>>> LieGrue, > >>>>> strub > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Am 03.09.2019 um 16:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < > >>>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If we still can't reuse jakata artifacts (their license is ok and > >> there > >>>>> is > >>>>>> no impl reference inside so we should just use them, right?) it > >> sounds > >>>>>> natural > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > >>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > >>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > >>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > >>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > >>>>>> < > >>>>> > >> > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Le mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:18, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > >>>>> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com> > >>>>>> a écrit : > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I was digging into some other specifications and see what would > >> pass > >>>>>>> Jakarta TCK and realized that geronimo-security_1.0_spec content > >>>>> actually > >>>>>>> mixes 2 specifications. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/security-api > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaspic > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I thought the initial intent was to create a specific artifact per > >>>>>>> specification. > >>>>>>> Mixing them is a bit annoying from a certification perspective. > >>>>>>> It's also not clean because in Tomcat for instance, there is > >> already > >>>>>>> jaspic API so it becomes a duplicate. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Would it be possible to split them up in 2 artifacts? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro > >>>>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > >>>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > >> > >
