Hi Mike,
Thanks for the explanation. When talking about the status quo I meant the Java EE status quo. I know you didn’t imply that the TCK would be available under commercial terms so apologies for that
😊
On two tier “compliance” I don’t think there is anything that can be done to stop it. You will get open source projects claiming they pass the EE4J open source TCK, or the licensed Jakarta EE Working
Group TCK as statements of fact and those that buy the brand to be “Jakarta EE Compatible”™. I think that’s simply the economics of open source. The working group
and Eclipse Foundation have to work to create brand value in the eyes of the brand consumers to ensure it’s a no-brainer for an implementor to pay to license the brand.
Steve
From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
Sent: 19 June 2018 10:49
To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] On the timing of patent grants
Steve,
Thoughts inlined below.
Also, I agree with everything that Steve Millidge said about the TCK, patent grants, and Jakarta EE trademark. Patents can be granted on passing TCK but TCK must be freely available. Trademark, on the other hand, can be pay to play if
TCK is passed.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:14 AM, Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+1 for deletion of the sentence although the sentence when combined with the sentence above gets to the heart of the “pay to play” argument. However I think the requirement against
the pay to play approach is captured in the Open Standards section.
My objection to the wording is slightly different to the argument as written below. My objection is that the patent rights are granted by the trademark license which is only available
on commercial terms hence pay to play.
I would not have disagreement with the status quo that patent rights are granted on passing the TCK if the TCK was available without charge. The problem with the status quo is that
the TCK is only available on negotiated commercial terms.
My position is that paying a trademark license fee should be independent of granting the patent and copyright licenses for the creation of Compatible Implementations which should
be possible without cost. Then it is a commercial branding decision whether to license the Jakarta EE brand and it is up to the Eclipse Foundation and the Working Group to build that brand and therefore make it commercially attractive to license.
The reference to an Eclipse TCK License was not intended to imply a requirement for a payment. It’s only meant to imply that the terms are not open source. If we want to tie compliance to a very specific version of the TCK, and add a requirement
that the implementer can only use that, then that’s not an open source license.
I never intended to imply that there would be a charge or royalty under the TCK license. I have always agreed that access to TCKs would not require payment. (Well, I could be convinced to restrict TCK access to Members, but I always think
like that.)
All that said, I recently saw a Twitter thread suggesting we have a two-tier compliance program: a free one for anyone who passes the TCK and one which includes the logo. I have very mixed feelings about that idea.
I will leave it to the lawyers to cut that Gordian Knot.
Steve
All,
The very last sentence of the
spec requirements document currently reads: "The EFTLA will also be the mechanism by which Compatible Implementations are licensed all patent rights granted by the Participants."
Many have pointed out that this requirements has a lot of implications. However, I can't really revise it in any particular direction at the moment because the lawyers have not yet agreed on whether we want to continue the status quo, or do something new.
The status quo is that both patent rights and the trademark license require passing the TCK. A more "modern" approach would be to tie only the trademark to the TCK and that patent rights would be granted to all implementers as soon as the spec is final. (Or
something similar.)
Oracle in particular will have a near-veto on this particular topic because the trademark license for javax and the spec names is tied to their level of comfort with the new spec process. So if the Oracle people here have not yet discussed this with their
colleagues in Legal, please do so.
I would like to publish this requirements document. My suggestion for the moment is that we simply delete that last sentence and go forward with the remainder of the document as is. A +1 on this suggestion would be appreciated.
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
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
|
