Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [Straw poll] namespace policy for existi

[Alasdair Nottingham <alasdair.nottingham@xxxxxxxxx>]

My preference would be for option 2. 

In terms of the option 4 saying retaining a package is on an exception on case-by-case basis raises the barrier for projects where it would be viable and thus could make the process less welcoming. For that reason I’d prefer to go with option 2 and treat new projects that wish to retain packages where there is an IP concern as the exception.

Thanks

Alasdair

On Jul 10, 2025, at 3:03 PM, David Blevins via jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think we need to be pragmatic and acknowledge that option 2 can only happen if the Eclipse Foundation either has the trademark for the namespace or is granted full rights to the trademark of the namespace.  For example if Spring folks wanted to donate a spec, the legal on that would be very costly as they'd want to retain control of general use of trademark while needing carve out what use they'd allow from a spec with their name.

We have no issue in that regards with MicroProfile, so we're good there.  I'd really be more comfortable with a to-the-point vote on allowing org.eclipse.microprofile vs a generic policy that goes about it in a round-about way that creates additional problems.

Namespaces are trademarks and we really need to think like lawyers when drafting any sort of "bring your own trademark" rule.

Again, MicroProfile's namespace is ok from a trademark perspective, but that's more an exception and not the typical rule.  

My vote would be:

 - option 4:  We prefer jakarta namespaces and evaluate exceptions on a case-by-case basis

David

On Jul 10, 2025, at 9:12 AM, Thomas Watson via jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As discussed at the July 9th meeting, we decided to do a straw poll to determine the specification committee group's opinion on package namespaces used by specifications wanting to move to the Jakarta specification project.

Please respond to this straw poll by July 23, 2025 so we can discuss results at the next specification committee meeting.

For existing specification projects that wish to move to the Jakarta specification project select one of the following options:

option 1: Force the existing specification projects to move all of their API package namespaces to jakarta when they move to the Jakarta specification project

option 2: Allow existing specification projects to retain their own existing package namespaces when they move to the Jakarta specification project

option 3: no preference

Tom Watson

_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To 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 unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee