Skip to main content

[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Fwd: [Bug 4589] Wrong license header in all Spec (API) files and License.txt

  • From: Werner Keil <werner.keil@...>
  • To: jsr342-experts@...
  • Subject: [javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Fwd: [Bug 4589] Wrong license header in all Spec (API) files and License.txt
  • Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:52:52 +0100
  • List-id: <jsr342-experts.javaee-spec.java.net>

While I leave the question of using SE 6 or 7 as minimum version for JSRs like Batch to the Spec Leads of both (arguments like the 2 interfaces in question not even being part of the public API yet placed in a package called "api" as opposed to others, are certainly worth exploring before it goes Final) please excuse me filing this other issue.

I may be among the few EC Members at least to ever fully dig into Source Code repositories where they're available, and I was also among the few, who helped CDI and JSR 330 (@Inject) once find the synergies they did in the end.

Doing so, I ran the entire TCK against the RI and also analyzed the code. And couldn't miss it being wrongly licensed, too: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/javax/inject/javax.inject/1/javax.inject-1.pom

All sources of the just half a dozen annotations that spec contains of are licensed literally the same, check Google Code if you like Apache 2 instead of the right Spec License saying either "Google" or "Crazy Bob" (the transition was very fluid, so I don't know, if he was still there when it went Final?) to be Spec Lead and licensor. 

While in the EC we heard, IBM wasn't as actively involved in JSRs as it used to be before the whole "Harmony" case, it should still have a Legal Team at least the size of Oracle if not bigger to confirm and care about License and IP just the way, Oracle does. 

Out of the EDR stage Maven deployments already made, the "jbatch" parent artifact incorrectly implies, Apache License covers all sub-modules.
At least
<module>JSR352.API</module>
should have its own LICENSE.txt and license declared, which it doesn't.
All other parts, unless anything else is considered integral part of the "Spec" seem fine with Apache 2.0.

HTH,
Werner

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <bugzilla-daemon@...>
Date: Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:45 AM
Subject: [Bug 4589] Wrong license header in all Spec (API) files and License.txt
To: keilw@...


http://java.net/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4589

keilw@... changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P5                          |P4

--
Configure bugmail: http://java.net/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You reported the bug.



[javaee-spec users] [jsr342-experts] Fwd: [Bug 4589] Wrong license header in all Spec (API) files and License.txt

Werner Keil 01/25/2013
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close