Kevin Sutter wrote on 10/3/18 2:47 PM:
> Note
that if someone grabs the TCK source code or binaries under
the EPL-2.0
and use that as the basis for testing, they would not be able
to make any
claims of compatibility whatsoever.
Well, they could still state that
their
product passes the TCK suite of tests. This could be a factual
statement.
This is why I think we need two different names - one for the test
suite that's an open source EE4J project, and one for the "binary"
release under the non-open license. If we keep using "TCK" to refer
to them both, it will be hard to police these claims of "passing the
TCK".
Can we call the project "the TSP (Test Suite Project)" or "the ETS
(EE4J Test Suite)", or something like that, and reserve "TCK" for
the specially licensed artifact that determines compatibility?
I understand the need to protect the
Jakarta EE trademark and branding. But, we have to be aware
that
there will be projects that will want to show "compliance" with
the spec and tck, but without paying any additional licensing
fees. No
matter how we word this restriction, someone will figure out a
way around
it...
The TCK is free. There's no need to use the source code and build
it yourself to save money. The only reason to use the source code
is to do something that the TCK license won't allow you to do, e.g.,
make a claim of partial compatibility, or modify the tests before
claiming compatibility.
|
