Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] javax.inject

[Mark Struberg <struberg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mike!

Thanks for pointing to this.

So we are not talking about the JSR-330 TCK license but only about atinject using the 'javax' package name and the problems with Oracle claiming the trademarks for it, right?

You are insofar correct that passing the full _EE_ TCK (which includes the JSR-330 TCK) also undoubtably will pass along all the necessary trademarks licenses for using the 'javax' package.
But would that be true, then wouldn't this in reverse mean that any other implementation, like Spring, guice, dagger, Maven, etc would be illegal, right?

It's an interesting thought and we need to dig deeper. This could have an atomic impact on the whole Java ecosystem. Including OpenJDK... Oracle is potentially opening pandoras box.
A con argument might be that on the official JCP ballot both Sun and Oracle (back then 2 entities) acked the JSR-330 and thus explicitly accepted the ALv2 licensing as per JSPA contract: https://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=4992
I agree with you that moving atinject to Jakarta.* would bypass all these legal questions. So yes, probably we should do it.


Regarding Bob Lee being the IP owner. This probably is only half of the story. Bob did this as employee of Google INC. And both Google Inc and Springsource Inc are mentioned as licensee on the official JCP page. Bob is not.
https://download.oracle.com/otndocs/jcp/dependency_injection-1.0-final-oth-JSpec/dependency_injection-1.0-final-oth-JSpec-license.html

I have no idea whether Bob had a special working contract with Google, giving him own IP for OSS work. But usually as employee you create originary IP only in the name of your employer which payes you to work on this project. Details are depending on the country you live in and on special conditions in your work contract, etc. So we can only assume. But potentially the right people to ask is Google Inc and not Bob personally.

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 06.06.2019 um 17:10 schrieb Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> On 2019-06-06 4:17 a.m., Mark Struberg wrote:
>> Whether we should move javax.inject to jakarta.inject or not is another story, but there is no legal need afaict.
> Not correct. Please ponder the implications of my blog post, which reads in part:
> 
> In addition to the above, any specifications which use the javax namespace will continue to carry the certification and container requirements which Java EE has had in the past. I.e., implementations which claim compliance with any version of the Jakarta EE specifications using the javax namespace must test on and distribute containers which embed certified Java SE implementations licensed by Oracle. These restrictions do not apply to Jakarta EE specifications which do not utilize javax, including future revisions of the platform specifications which eliminate javax
> 
> -- 
> Mike Milinkovich
> Executive Director | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
> mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> @mmilinkov
> +1.613.220.3223 (m)
> _______________________________________________
> jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
> jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev