[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] about the status of atinject
- From: Christian Kaltepoth <christian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 08:10:07 +0200
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm alsoÂ+1 for integrating AtInject into Jakarta EE.
AndÂ+1 for contacting the former EG first.Â
+1 on forking for Jakarta EE.
Am 09.05.2019 um 21:54 schrieb Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
The patent grant in the ALv2 is far, far weaker than the patent grants in the Jakarta EE Spec Process.This is a very broad argument and we should rather clarify this to avoid confusing non legally trained readers.I personally strongly believe that the patent grant in the ALv2 is absolutely sufficient.The main difference afaict is that for some older specs Oracle wanted to sign over patents to them, while the ALv2 only _grants_ patent licenses to *every* downstream consumer . So the ALv2 patent grant is - in my eyes - evenmore aligned with the new Jakarta Specification License than the old (imo overreaching) handling. It's also way more practical also in hindsight of tax law.Anyway, since I don't believe that there are any patents filed for atinject stuff anyway it is hopefully a merely theoretical discussion. So I will stop here.And first we need to focus on whether JakartaEE is interested to fork atinject at all - from a purely business demand point of view.LieGrue,strub https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#patent_______________________________________________jakartaee-platform-dev mailing listjakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visithttps://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit