I understand the concern, and don't disagree, but note that the
trademark license will contain lots of other details that we have to
get exactly right, such as the list of package names.
Mike Milinkovich wrote on 10/ 8/18
04:10 PM:
On 2018-10-03 11:11 AM, Bill Shannon
wrote:
Sadly,
yes.
Given that, I don't think that option #3 is a realistic
alternative. Even though the module names shouldn't change, it
means that if we get anything incorrect or fail to foresee a case
where a java.* module name is required in the future we would have
to negotiate an amendment to the legal agreement. Please don't do
that.
Raymond Auge wrote on 10/3/18 6:58
AM:
Bill, just clarifying but, #3 means that every single
java.* name would have to be predefined, i.e. hard coded,
into the license?
![Avast logo]()
|
This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
|
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
|
