Re: [ee4j-pmc] Jakarta EE releases in Maven Central

[Lukas Jungmann <lukas.jungmann@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/2/18 8:13 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
> Lukas Jungmann wrote on 11/02/2018 11:15 AM:
> > On 11/2/18 6:32 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
> > > Until we have Jakarta EE versions of all these specifications, the specification
> > > vendor is still Oracle since these artifacts are conforming to the existing JCP
> > > specifications.
> >
> > This sounds logical to me. OTOH implication is the opposite of what has been
> > said in https://www.eclipse.org/lists/ee4j-build/msg00440.html
> >
> > So I'm confused now... Luckily there seems to be only 2 options to choose from.
>
> That message doesn't talk about the specification at all.  It's fine to
> change the implementation vendor to Eclipse.

it does not talk about it directly, it's more or less a consequence of 
that - if vendor.name is changed as it says ie here: 
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaxr-api/blob/master/pom.xml#L37

then it will be used as Specification-Vendor in manifest here: 
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaxr-api/blob/master/pom.xml#L169

analogically:
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jax-rpc-api/blob/master/pom.xml#L35
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jax-rpc-api/blob/master/pom.xml#L147

> > > And I don't believe Oracle has assigned copyright in the javadocs to the
> > > Eclipse Foundation so the copyright for the javadocs should reflect the
> > > copyright owners of the corresponding source files, predominantly Oracle.
> >
> > maven's javadoc plugin defaults to:
> >
> > Copyright © {inceptionYear}–{currentYear} {organizationName}. All
> > rights reserved.
> >
> > organizationName defaults to Eclipse Foundation, inceptionYear to 2017 and
> > currentYear to 2018 if inherited from parent and not overridden.
> >
> > Based on what you've said, it should be overriden to:
> > Copyright © originalYear–{currentYear} Oracle. All rights reserved.
> >
> > Right? Anyway, one more item to check while double-checking EE4J_8 branches
> > before passing them to jenkins...
>
> I think that's a function of how you configure the Maven javadoc plugin.
> But yes, at this point, I think the copyright owner should be Oracle, and
> possibly others who have contributed.

the point is that there are projects which do not have explicitly 
defined javadoc configuration with the footer definition, so the javadoc 
plugin configuration with footer override should be added where missing. 
In the other words - no explicit configuration in the project => wrong 
copyright footer in generated javadoc

thanks,
--lukas