Le 12/09/12 00:47, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) a écrit :
On Sep 11, 2012, at 2:20 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
Actually I don't think that this information binds us to any licensing. I see
it more as a documentation thing, i.e. advising that we try to implement some
specification...
You may be right about that :) If no one else chimes in (specifically was
looking for Kevan to comment), then I am OK with proceeding.
It seems to me though that the specification portion of the JAR files that
Apache distributes should probably be related to the foundation
itself. So more so than legal, it's a branding thing ("i think") :)
Apache is still declared as the implementor. My understanding is that
for the Derby database (for instance), the "specification" section would
declare JDBC and the "implementation" section would declare Apache
(Derby is not currently declaring those sections, but if it did I think
that would be the idea). The same would apply to XML parsers, JEE
implementations, etc.
So let's see what comes of it. If no one speaks up in the next few days let's
proceed.
Fine, I will wait to next week.
Martin
