I would say once bug fixes have been done the Implementation Vendor should be the Eclipse Foundation rather than Oracle. Even for the Specification Vendor I would say once the normative text has been updated it should be the Eclipse Foundation than Oracle. But in fact, this should be decided by the EMO as it implies a legal aspect. -Marks From: ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christian Kaltepoth
Sent: Samstag, 3. November 2018 08:11
To: EE4J PMC Discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-pmc] JavaMail 1.6.3 release review While I agree about the specification vendor, I'm not so sure about the implementation vendor. It would be great if we could get some recommendation by the PMC regarding this. Well, at this point, Oracle is still the specification vendor (we don't have a Jakarta EE specification yet) and implementation vendor (it's all Oracle copyright code). Christian Kaltepoth wrote on 11/02/2018 02:25 AM: I don't think that this is a blocker for the release, but the MANIFEST.MF still contains some Oracle references: Specification-Vendor: Oracle Implementation-Vendor: Oracle
-- _______________________________________________ ee4j-pmc mailing list ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
-- |
