geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear
Date Wed, 04 Sep 2019 13:07:18 GMT
No, before that it was CDDL+GPL. It just moved to EPL, which is also CatB

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 04.09.2019 um 15:06 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
> 
> @Mark: didn't change with jakarta donation? can you open a ticket on
> jakartee tracker please?
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau>
|
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
> 
> 
> Le mer. 4 sept. 2019 à 15:04, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> a écrit :
> 
>> No, this is an intended situation.
>> When one fully passes the TCK then you get the EFSL. This 'removes' the
>> copyleft nature of the EPL.
>> The details are quite nested in the legal papers, but that's it basically.
>> 
>> If we just upgrade our existing API to be binary compat then we have no IP
>> issues.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 03.09.2019 um 16:37 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com
>>> :
>>> 
>>> MP license is ok (Apache2) but Jakarta is EPLs so keeps the ambiguity
>> for us.
>>> That said it is good to reuse the same GAV for end users so we might ask
>> jakarta to double license its api jars?
>>> 
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | Book
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:33, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com> a écrit :
>>> Yep that was the point.
>>> So I was asking if we should do the same yes or not.
>>> 
>>> That seems to be your opinion Romain.
>>> Mark on the other end is having some doubts about the license.
>>> --
>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:31 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Le mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:29, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
>>> a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> Thanks Romain. I'm fine with using Eclipse jars if from a legal point
>> of
>>>> view, it works.
>>>> Otherwise, I'd like to split our spec jars.
>>>> 
>>>> What about MicroProfile?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> We already agreed to not redo the API and use microprofile jars.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> It's the same license and we are using them in our MicroProfile
>>>> implementations.
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:26 PM Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de.invalid
>>> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> depends what their license is. EPL is (weak) copyleft. Thus I would
>> like
>>>>> to avoid exposing it downstream as api.
>>>>> 
>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>> strub
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Am 03.09.2019 um 16:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If we still can't reuse jakata artifacts (their license is ok and
>> there
>>>>> is
>>>>>> no impl reference inside so we should just use them, right?) it
>> sounds
>>>>>> natural
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>>> <
>>>>> 
>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Le mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:18, Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>>>>> jlmonteiro@tomitribe.com>
>>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I was digging into some other specifications and see what would
>> pass
>>>>>>> Jakarta TCK and realized that geronimo-security_1.0_spec content
>>>>> actually
>>>>>>> mixes 2 specifications.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/security-api
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaspic
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I thought the initial intent was to create a specific artifact
per
>>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>> Mixing them is a bit annoying from a certification perspective.
>>>>>>> It's also not clean because in Tomcat for instance, there is
>> already
>>>>>>> jaspic API so it becomes a duplicate.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Would it be possible to split them up in 2 artifacts?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>>>>>>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message