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
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?
