I'd like to certify some of them if possible of course. Le mer. 4 sept. 2019 à 15:33, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 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 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
