Note that the "focused" examples in the Jakarta EE Examples project are all BSD-0, which is the strongest license for example code. BSD-3 is a weaker license there and used for the "tutorial" examples, but it's still acceptable.
I believe the example code files are currently licensed under EDL
(BSD 3-clause), not the project license (EPL + GPLv2 w/ classpath
exemption). They should remain under the more permissive EDL as
that is intended to promote copy and reuse. At least, that was the
original intent and I believe the source code in these examples is
already marked that way.
My reason for bringing this up was to suggest that we would
rather not remove the obligation to maintain the original
copyright unless there is some persuasive argument that this would
inhibit the project goals. In a previous comment, or perhaps in
the proposal, there is a recommendation to re-license the example
code under BSD-0 which does not obligate the consumer to preserve
the original copyright. Users are free to add subsequent copyright
marks, as they feel are needed.
I'll be happy with whatever the EMO decides on a restructuring
ballot.
Thanks,
Ed
On 5/8/2023 7:09 AM, Tanja Obradovic
via ee4j-pmc wrote:
Hi All,
considering that examples will be in the Examples project, the
licensing does not need to change and we can have it as it was
Eclipse
Public License 2.0
(Secondary)
GNU General Public License, version 2 with the GNU Classpath
Exception
Ed, I'll be happy to add you as a committer as well.
Ivar has responded to restructuring of the project already. EMO
will look into that.
Thanks,
Tanja
On 2023-05-04 11:30 a.m., Ed Bratt
wrote:
I would recommend we ballot the scope change just to make it
clear this material is leaving the context of the
specification project. I believe, since the scope statements
are rather vague across the board, it would be better to
formally ballot this change.
I would prefer that license not change, I believe it is EDL
for everything (BSD 3-clause).
-- Ed
On 5/3/2023 10:17 PM, Ivar Grimstad
via ee4j-pmc wrote:
Oracle would prefer we stick with existing license
(EDL I believe).
I am okay with that.
I believe the Platform project, which currently
holds this content, will need a restructuring ballot
to change the scope and formalize that this material
is removed from the scope of the Platform Spec
project.
Yes, a restructuring review by the EMO. No ballots
are involved.
Since the current scope statement doesn't say
anything about the tutorial, first cup, or examples,
this should just be a formality to tick some checkbox
somewhere.
Ivar
-- Ed
On 5/3/2023 11:21 AM, Eclipse Management Office
EMO via ee4j-pmc wrote:
Dear PMC,
please respond to this message with a +1 if you're prepared to take on responsibility for overseeing the governance of this/these new project(s)