Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Code-First IP flow?

["Steve Millidge (Payara)" <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Can someone clarify the subtle IP point we are arguing here. I thought the ASL or EPL provided a copyright and patent license? Are people discussing incorporating the API JAR in a compatible implementation or recreating the API jar from scratch?

 

If it is impossible to build an implementation of an EPL or ASL licensed API without a differently licensed spec doc then the whole concept of MicroProfile is blown out of the water.

 

I apologise for my European mind set which makes me struggle with the concepts of copyrightable APIs and software patents 😊 Perhaps it’s time for me to bring the IP lawyer in.

 

Steve

 

From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Bill Shannon
Sent: 31 May 2018 00:22
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Code-First IP flow?

 

Before the specification is created (approved?), can we have more than one implementation of the API?  If the first implementation has patent IP, an independent implementation won't have rights to that patent IP without a specification to license the IP, right?

So if Apache CXF updates the Eclipse JAX-RS API project before proposing a JAX-RS specification update, the Eclipse Jersey project might not be able to implement that updated API without infringing the Apache CXF IP.

It seems like we should encourage there to be multiple implementations of a new or updated spec, to ensure that the new APIs work as expected.  Doesn't that mean we need a spec proposal corresponding to those updates before they're made, through which the IP will flow to the implementations?