| Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [Straw poll] namespace policy for existing specifications moving to the Jakarta specification project |
|
My preference is option 1, but if David's option 4 was still viable that could work as a compromise.
Werner
From: jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of David Blevins via jakarta.ee-spec.committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 9:03 PM To: Jakarta specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [Straw poll] namespace policy for existing specifications moving to the Jakarta specification project 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
|