| Re: [ee4j-community] Licensing Question |
Mike, So every update of an existing JSR, say 374: https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=374 to become JSON-P 1.2 or whatever would be completely re-licensed to use only EPLv2 instead of the mix of CDDL 1.1, GPLv2 with Classpath Exception and that Commercial Oracle license? It’s certainly not the case now, as MicroProfile as a ‘Micro Umbrella’ already uses JSR 353 or (from a future version) 374 like they are used with all their existing licenses. So only once a spec was updated in a new place, that’ll apply, or do you plan a Maintenance Review of every single existing JSR under Java EE 8 to change its license, too? Werner Today's Topics: 1. Re: Licensing Question (Mike Milinkovich) 2. Re: EE4J and the JCP (werner.keil@xxxxxxxxx) 3. Re: EE4J and the JCP (Will Lyons) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:17:51 -0400 From: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] Licensing Question Message-ID: <f37ea2e4-5005-f6ec-5e9e-66f6a1848fe9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 2017-10-09 3:41 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > ultimately, the question may be moot and may be more relevant with > individual projects as they come in.? If the intention is that all of > the new stuff comes in with only the EPLv2 license, I suspect that's > ok.? What I am concerned with is that a spec may come in that chooses > GPLv2, in which case I'm worried that we would not be able to create > an implementation that was not GPL. John, The Eclipse Foundation invests a lot in managing the IP of our projects, and licensing is job #1. I can promise you that no specs or projects will be joining EE4J under the GPLv2. |