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
