The PDF hasn't included the javadocs for probably 15 years. I've
explained this several times.
The javadocs submitted along with the spec document needs to use the
EFSL.
The javadoc jar file can use EPL, that doesn't matter.
It was simpler to just produce one artifact usable for both so we
didn't worry about the license in the javadoc jar file, but if
someone wants to propose a different way to do it that's fine.
Kevin Sutter wrote on 7/31/19 8:07 AM:
> I
am operating under the assumption that the PDF file produced
as the final
specification document will include the JavaDoc content.
The generated
PDF does not include the Javadoc content. TBH, I also thought
that
was the original requirement. But, as we worked through the
skeletal
Spec process, it was determined that this was not a requirement.
Maybe
that was a wrong conclusion, but that's where we stand.
Definitely
a topic for our call today. Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect
e-mail: sutter@xxxxxxxxxx Twitter: @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter
From:
Mike
Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
07/31/2019
10:00 AM
Subject:
[EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] [jakartaee-spec-project-leads]
License
files in javadoc and sources artifacts
Sent
by: jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
On 2019-07-31 10:30 a.m., Kevin
Sutter
wrote:
>No,
I do not think that the JavaDoc jar file should also be
available under
the EFSL.
Mike, I'm confused by this statement. I thought this was a
requirement
since the combination of the Skeletal Spec plus the JavaDoc
constituted
the "Specification" for the Jakarta EE 8 components. If
this is truly not required, it simplifies a lot of work.
I am operating under the assumption
that
the PDF file produced as the final specification document will
include
the JavaDoc content. That PDF file is the artifact that should
be made
available under the EFSL, and that is the mechanism by which the
APIs are
all clearly licensed for use in independent implementations. I
don't see
why you would ever want to put a jar file under the EFSL.
Of course if my assumption is
incorrect
then I'm wrong.
I'll join the Spec Committee call
today
to discuss.
--
Mike
Milinkovich
Executive
Director | Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
@mmilinkov
+1.613.220.3223
(m)_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
|
