Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Adding MIT

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Instead of adding MIT, why not just remove
both BSD and MIT and leave them as "exceptions"?  You already
added a blurb today about each Working Group having the final decision.
 Isn't that sufficient?  You've been very clear that you prefer
either EPL (both versions) or Apache.  So, let's leave those three
listed and any other usage is an exception that should be vetted.

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, MicroProfile and Java EE architect
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter



From:      
 Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 Jakarta specification
committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:      
 06/01/2018 01:02 PM
Subject:    
   [jakarta.ee-spec.committee]
Adding MIT
Sent by:    
   jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

All,

Scott just posted this on the document, but personally I find discussions easier on the list than in the document.

So we would prefer to see the MIT license over BSD due to stronger patent claims, and as background, here is a link to slides from a licensing workshop panel with Scott Peterson(Red Hat), McCoy Smith(Intel) and Jim Wright(Oracle), https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-MmvjVWT5lCk-5iqCtH8XNlImZ5C07Ev/view

Personally, I wish we didn't have either of the BSD or the MIT on the list since neither have a crystal clear patent license. I've previously read Scott's analysis of why the MIT does provide patent grants and they make sense. But the black-and-white text in the EPL or ALv2 are even better IMO. The only reason I included the BSD on the list is because I feel we have to. It is a statement of fact that we already have projects using the BSD 3 clause. It is also a fact that we have many projects at Eclipse that have been granted permission by the Board to use the BSD, but very few using MIT.

That said, I would happily add the MIT to the list. But to be clear, every single time it is used would require a unanimous resolution by the EF BoD.

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(m) +1.613.220.3223
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee