Re: [microprofile-wg] [microprofile] Re: Requirements for compatibility logo usage
This is back to a compatibility logo program with per registrant costs due to registration overhead and defense requirements.
The proposed alternative was to develop a public domain version of the logo ala Java Duke (https://www.oracle.com/java/duke.html
) and to not worry about misuse. The user community for implementations that claim compatibility that are not will handle that.
Thank you Mike for your quick response! I think the compatibility logo is a big icon for being a standard body.
Since any non-wg members can still claim compatibility, the logo is just one more sticker for the WG members. We can define a webpage to list all of the compatible implementations. Any implementations within WG can use the logo in their marketing slides. Why should we as a WG destroy the full effort of having a compatibility logo?
That is exactly how Jakarta EE works today, and is the essence of
the original proposal.
On 2021-11-03 7:34 p.m., Emily Jiang
via microprofile-wg wrote:
At the moment, we are discussing logo vs. no logo. Is it
possible to compromise the two options?
We can have a compatibility logo but for WG members only.
However, non WG members are allowed to claim compatibility
without the legal right of using the compatibility logo. Being a
member and non-member, the only difference is the logo access.
Executive Director | Eclipse Foundation AISBL
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
microprofile-wg mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit