geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DISCUSS geronimo-security_1.0_spec content unclear
Date Wed, 04 Sep 2019 13:06:14 GMT
@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