[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects



On Sunday, January 14, 2018, Werner Keil <werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mike,

Thanks for the clarification. Although Oracle representatives or Spec Leads confirmed they do not seek major updates to Java EE standards now placed under the EE4J umbrella, there could be some major issues or bugs the original codebase (through the Maintenance Lead or in some cases former EG Members who signed the OCA) must address to fix them in products and solutions based on Java EE 8.Â

I do wonder a bit how that would work. Both EE 7 and EE 8 are âcurrentâ products. If Iâd like to fix a bug in JSF 2.2 from EE 7, how would that be done generally speaking?

As the current Mojarra 2.2 branch (state) wouldnât exist in the transferred code, would a request to Oracle be done then to publish a new version?

Related to this, are the existing Maven coordinates for various products (like Mojarra) transferred, or would Eclipse Mojarra have to be published using new coordinates?

Kind regards,
Arjan

Â

So it is more or less a fork even if critical bugs may be fixed in both, but it would rarely be via an actual PR from one repository to the other. That is the only way one might see them connected.

Regards,

Werner



On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:52 PM, <ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org> wrote:
Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
    ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    ee4j-community-request@eclipse.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    ee4j-community-owner@xxxxxxxxxrg

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."


Today's Topics:

 Â1. Re: Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects
   (Mike Milinkovich)
 Â2. Re: Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects (Mrinal Kanti)
 Â3. Re: Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects (Markus KARG)


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

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 12:08:16 -0500
From: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org>
To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J
    Projects
Message-ID:
    <8216eaf0-196d-c72d-0d83-6591a8bbeec8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

On 2018-01-14 11:21 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
>
>Â Â ÂOn 2018-01-14 10:19 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
>>Â Â ÂWhen the older versions are removed, we may also lose track of
>>Â Â Âthe initial contributors. Given the fact that earlier versions
>>Â Â Âwere released under GPLv2 (with CE) and newer versions can also
>>Â Â Âbe used under EPL, doesn't that require consent from ALL initial
>>Â Â Âcontributors?
>
>Â Â ÂContributors signed the Sun (later Oracle) Contributor Agreement
>Â Â Âwhich provides Sun/Oracle with joint /ownership/ of the
>Â Â Âcontributions. All necessary consents and licensing issues have
>Â Â Âbeen taken care of.
>
>
> Yes, joint ownership doesn't diminish the importance of consent from
> those initial contributors. Thanks for your assurance that it has been
> taken care of.

Mrinal,

I think perhaps you misunderstood me.

By providing joint ownership at the time of contribution, all necessary
consents to re-licensing were provided at the time of contribution.
Sections 2 and 4 of the Oracle Contributor Agreement
<http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/oca-405177.pdf> make this clear.

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
(m) +1.613.220.3223

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/20180114/a5f26d9d/attachment.html>

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

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 22:48:34 +0530
From: Mrinal Kanti <mrinal.kanti@xxxxxxxxx>
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J
    Projects
Message-ID:
    <CAAenm-9u29ZsGgUkXYWBp9nRqjjsoX=pSzZF1Etds4pi4hmWnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Thanks Mike for clarifying this. The OCA FAQ
<http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/oca-faq-405384.pdf> clearly accounts for
this scenario in simpler terms. So I see indemnification should not be
required as long as OCA was signed by all initial contributors.

Regards,
Mrinal

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Mike Milinkovich <
mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org> wrote:

> On 2018-01-14 11:21 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
>
> On 2018-01-14 10:19 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:
>>
>> When the older versions are removed, we may also lose track of the
>> initial contributors. Given the fact that earlier versions were released
>> under GPLv2 (with CE) and newer versions can also be used under EPL,
>> doesn't that require consent from ALL initial contributors?
>>
>>
>> Contributors signed the Sun (later Oracle) Contributor Agreement which
>> provides Sun/Oracle with joint *ownership* of the contributions. All
>> necessary consents and licensing issues have been taken care of.
>>
>
> Yes, joint ownership doesn't diminish the importance of consent from those
> initial contributors. Thanks for your assurance that it has been taken care
> of.
>
> Mrinal,
>
> I think perhaps you misunderstood me.
>
> By providing joint ownership at the time of contribution, all necessary
> consents to re-licensing were provided at the time of contribution.
> Sections 2 and 4 of the Oracle Contributor Agreement
> <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/oca-405177.pdf> make this clear.
> --
> Mike Milinkovich
> mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
> (m) +1.613.220.3223
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ee4j-community mailing list
> ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/20180114/7f576a7d/attachment.html>

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

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:52:18 +0100
From: "Markus KARG" <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'EE4J community discussions'" <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J
    Projects
Message-ID: <010201d38d60$6e775ed0$4b661c70$@eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I wonder whether this is actually needed for _historic_ commits: The EF does not claim the copyright for the _history_, but only lists (correctly!) the files as they had been back then, with the licence they had been published under. I do not see any legal problems, actually, as the past connot be modified, and as Oracle was the sole owner. It will simply look like an owner change and licence change when comparing Oracle's last commit with EF's first one, which is the complete truth.



From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
Sent: Sonntag, 14. Januar 2018 17:21
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects






On Jan 14, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Still I do not see the difference between the _latest_ commit and any other commit actually. The OCAs had been signed for those commits, too, and the licence was pretty much the same back then already. So what _additional_ work has to be done exactly for _each_ commit?



Amongst other things: change all the file headers to the new licenses and copyright notices.







From: ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@eclipse.org] On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
Sent: Sonntag, 14. Januar 2018 17:06
To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Retaining History for incoming EE4J Projects



On 2018-01-14 10:19 AM, Mrinal Kanti wrote:

When the older versions are removed, we may also lose track of the initial contributors. Given the fact that earlier versions were released under GPLv2 (with CE) and newer versions can also be used under EPL, doesn't that require consent from ALL initial contributors?


Contributors signed the Sun (later Oracle) Contributor Agreement which provides Sun/Oracle with joint ownership of the contributions. All necessary consents and licensing issues have been taken care of.





I assume that Oracle would have cleared all license related issues but want to know if it would suffice for indemnification should the need ever arise in future.


What indemnification? No open source license past, present or future provides an indemnification.





Do we have any provision for tracking initial contributor consent publicly, just to be on the safe side?

No, as none is required.

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@eclipse-foundation.org
(m) +1.613.220.3223

_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/20180114/82e7ec93/attachment.html>

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

_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community


End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 5, Issue 21
*********************************************