|
All,
To be clear about the status of this,
the Eclipse Foundation has not received anything in writing from
Oracle on this topic since Bill Shannon's email on January 30th.
We still have not been provided a date when we should expect the
first draft. There is also a greater than zero probability that
whatever Oracle proposes will be completely unacceptable to the
Eclipse Foundation. Assuming that there is some room for
negotiation, I anticipate months of work to drive to completion.
In short, it is my estimation that the
*best* case scenario would be to have an agreement in place one
year after Bill's original email, and 16 months after Oracle
publicly stated that it was their intent to migrate Java EE to the
Eclipse Foundation.
On 2018-11-07 7:03 p.m., Kevin Sutter
wrote:
Couldn't agree with you more,
Scott. Today's
call was quite frustrating...
FYI, the "licensing agreement"
that is under discussion between Oracle and Eclipse (and has
been dormant
for the last "10 months" per Mike's comment today) was last
referenced
by Bill Shannon to the old ee4j-private group dated Jan 30, 2018
with a
subject line of "proposed Java trademark
license
terms". If you can not
find it, I could re-post the note to this group (it's quite
lengthy).
I agree that we have done a
considerable
amount of work already assuming that this licensing agreement
would be
taken care of in short order... Now that it has been almost 10
months
and I'm not aware of any (significant) progress in resolving
this issue,
where do we stand? I think we're getting to the point of no
return...
---------------------------------------------------
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:
Scott Stark
<sstark@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Jakarta specification
committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
11/07/2018 04:22 PM
Subject:
[jakarta.ee-spec.committee]
Concerns from today's meeting, input
for tomorrow
Sent by:
jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
It was concerning to hear that
there is
a non-trivial Java trademark concern still in place looming over
the Jakarta
EE spec process. Hence my question about where the Java
trademark issue
is showing up. I'm still not really understanding how usage of
java.* and
javax.* in the legacy package namespaces has a significant
trademark concern
that has not already been addressed prior to Oracle even
considering moving
the enterprise Java specs over to Eclipse.
In reviewing the only trademark
agreement
that I or our legal team has seen, this has nothing to do with
Java based
trademarks. It is an agreement on use of the Jakarta EE
Compatible branding.
We have commitments that have
timeframes
for withdrawal of support barring sufficient progress that are
too close
for comfort to not have an understanding of such a basic issue.
We are
certainly not willing to be involved in a spec process that
continues to
require any type of veto power in the hands of a single vendor.
In terms of approval of a
specification
process, we are only concerned with the spec process for Jakarta
EE. If
a general process can be bootstrapped as a by-product, that is
fine, but
we need to see the ability to move Java EE 8 into Jakarta EE 9
ASAP, including
how one bootstraps the specification text and evolution of the
legacy javax.*
package APIs.
_______________________________________________
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://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
_______________________________________________
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://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
![Avast logo]()
|
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
|
|
