Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] Licensing Question

Mike,

 

So every update of an existing JSR, say 374: https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=374

to become JSON-P 1.2 or whatever would be completely re-licensed to use only EPLv2 instead of the mix of CDDL 1.1, GPLv2 with Classpath Exception and that Commercial Oracle license?

 

It’s certainly not the case now, as MicroProfile as a ‘Micro Umbrella’ already uses JSR 353 or (from a future version) 374 like they are used with all their existing licenses.

 

So only once a spec was updated in a new place, that’ll apply, or do you plan a Maintenance Review of every single existing JSR under Java EE 8 to change its license, too?

 

Werner

 

 

Today's Topics:

 

   1. Re: Licensing Question (Mike Milinkovich)

   2. Re: EE4J and the JCP (werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx)

   3. Re: EE4J and the JCP (Will Lyons)

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Message: 1

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:17:51 -0400

From: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Licensing Question

Message-ID:

        <f37ea2e4-5005-f6ec-5e9e-66f6a1848fe9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

 

On 2017-10-09 3:41 PM, John D. Ament wrote:

> ultimately, the question may be moot and may be more relevant with

> individual projects as they come in.? If the intention is that all of

> the new stuff comes in with only the EPLv2 license, I suspect that's

> ok.? What I am concerned with is that a spec may come in that chooses

> GPLv2, in which case I'm worried that we would not be able to create

> an implementation that was not GPL.

 

John,

 

The Eclipse Foundation invests a lot in managing the IP of our projects,

and licensing is job #1. I can promise you that no specs or projects

will be joining EE4J under the GPLv2.

 

 

 


Back to the top