Hi Mark, I'm didn't notice the licensing aspect you mention on b). What would be the work need it, for example in java-ee-api, to add the reciprocity you are mentioning? Just a license header change?
El dom., 19 abr. 2020 a las 3:34, Mark Struberg (<[email protected]>) escribió: > Hi folks! > > While moving over to jakartaee we need to discuss which specs we want to > include in our maven builds. > > We have a jakarta.* branch for the geronimo specs since a year. > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/branches/jakarta/ < > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/branches/jakarta/> > In fact, this was the first ever attempt whether moving the packages was > possible at all. > > The other possible option would be to use the now existing official > packages from eclipse. > There are a few issues with those though. > > a.) they are not OSGi capable. Not a bit deal for most, but there are > projects like karaf, Camel, etc which make use of OSGi. > I have not checked whether Eclipse has plans to add this feature to their > official artifacts. Anyone? > > b.) The EPLv2 is a weak copyleft license. So it still requires some > reciprocity. ALv2 does not. > https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html < > https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html> > See section 3 in https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/ > I think this would be fine as long as we make sure not to modify it. Our > java-ee-api super-jar might be such a case. > > c.) Software Maintenance > With maintaining our own versions of the specs we can rather quickly test > out new features currently under discussion. This would be harder if we do > not maintain those sources ourselves. > Of course this also has downsides: we _need_ to maintain it and we need to > make sure it finally is binary compatible. Checking signatures and stuff... > > For the record: Apache Tomcat still maintains all the apis for themselves > as well: > https://github.com/apache/tomcat/tree/master/java/jakarta -- Atentamente: César Hernández.
