So the licensing for the code as Arjan pointed out will be
different from the documentation.
Hope this helps,
Tanja
On 2023-05-11 12:30 p.m., Arjan Tijms
wrote:
Hi,
Note that the "focused" examples in the Jakarta EE Examples
project are all BSD-0, which is the strongest license for
example code. BSD-3 is a weaker license there and used for the
"tutorial" examples, but it's still acceptable.
I believe the example code files are currently licensed
under EDL (BSD 3-clause), not the project license (EPL +
GPLv2 w/ classpath exemption). They should remain under
the more permissive EDL as that is intended to promote
copy and reuse. At least, that was the original intent and
I believe the source code in these examples is already
marked that way.
My reason for bringing this up was to suggest that we
would rather not remove the obligation to maintain the
original copyright unless there is some persuasive
argument that this would inhibit the project goals. In a
previous comment, or perhaps in the proposal, there is a
recommendation to re-license the example code under BSD-0
which does not obligate the consumer to preserve the
original copyright. Users are free to add subsequent
copyright marks, as they feel are needed.
I'll be happy with whatever the EMO decides on a
restructuring ballot.
Thanks,
Ed
On 5/8/2023 7:09 AM, Tanja Obradovic via ee4j-pmc
wrote:
Hi All,
considering that examples will be in the Examples
project, the licensing does not need to change and we
can have it as it was
Eclipse
Public License 2.0
(Secondary)
GNU General Public License, version 2 with the GNU
Classpath Exception
Ed, I'll be happy to add you as a committer as well.
Ivar has responded to restructuring of the project
already. EMO will look into that.
Thanks,
Tanja
On 2023-05-04 11:30 a.m., Ed Bratt wrote:
I would recommend we ballot the scope change just to
make it clear this material is leaving the context of
the specification project. I believe, since the scope
statements are rather vague across the board, it would
be better to formally ballot this change.
I would prefer that license not change, I believe it
is EDL for everything (BSD 3-clause).
-- Ed
On 5/3/2023 10:17 PM, Ivar Grimstad via ee4j-pmc
wrote:
Oracle would prefer we stick with existing
license (EDL I believe).
I am okay with that.
I believe the Platform project, which
currently holds this content, will need a
restructuring ballot to change the scope and
formalize that this material is removed from
the scope of the Platform Spec project.
Yes, a restructuring review by the EMO. No
ballots are involved.
Since the current scope statement doesn't say
anything about the tutorial, first cup, or
examples, this should just be a formality to
tick some checkbox somewhere.
Ivar
-- Ed
On 5/3/2023 11:21 AM, Eclipse Management
Office EMO via ee4j-pmc wrote:
Dear PMC,
please respond to this message with a +1 if you're prepared to take on responsibility for overseeing the governance of this/these new project(s)