Hi,
As we discussed on the meeting today, sending additional information and steps we should consider taking before project re-balloting.
Original ballot for Jakarta Config project was held improperly. The project was submitted under Compatible Patent License (CPL), but it's been changed to Implementation Patent License (IPL) based on Jakarta EE Steering Committee decision.
The Steering Committee doesn't have authority to change proposals, which makes the original ballot invalid and new ballot must be started.
We have an opportunity to tune the proposal. There are two areas where we can make changes.
1. Change the scope statement to add a clarifying statement regarding the question of fully moving MicroProfile Config to Jakarta EE
Original scope statement is:
Jakarta Config is a Java API for working with configurations. It supports externalized configuration allowing applications to use different configurations for different environments (dev, test, prod), and allows reading data from different
layered configuration sources such as property files, environment variables, etc.
Proposed new statement:
Jakarta Config is a Java API for working with configurations. It supports externalized configuration allowing applications to use different configurations for different environments (dev, test, prod), and allows reading data from different
layered configuration sources such as property files, environment variables, etc.
The project is created as a successor of MicroProfile Config project. The intention is to move MicroProfile Config to Jakarta EE with modifications that make it acceptable for use in Jakarta EE.
I would like to hear your opinion.
2. Decide what patent license option to choose
Jakarta Config was originally submitted with CPL license.
There are two options:
-
Compatible Patent License (CPL) which is used in all Jakarta EE projects now and it's what Jakarta Config proposal was originally submitted with. If we want to keep it we will need to pass the Steering Committee approval before entering the ballot.
-
Implementation Patent License (IPL) which has recently become a default option for all new Jakarta EE specification and all MicroProfile specifications. We don't need an extra approval in this case.
Here are some links explaining differences in patent licenses:
My opinion is that we should keep CPL for Jakarta Config. It's well defined and a product author has a clear understanding of what it means to be compatible. In IPL the definition of implementation seems to be purposely left vague. The
process should not grant patent licenses based on undefined criteria.
I would like to bring this question to this group, discuss it and vote for the patent license option we want to use. I'll initiate the internal ballot today in a separate email.
Thanks,
Dmitry
