Clarify licensing of API source code & class/jar files

[argv-minus-one]

The licenses for the API do not seem to grant permission to distribute the API jar with an application, other than for “internal evaluation”. Without that permission, there is no way to distribute an application that uses JavaMoney without infringing on Credit Suisse's intellectual property, let alone to distribute it under an open source license.

Please clarify the licensing situation.

[argv-minus-one]

The licenses also don't seem to grant permission to GitHub to publish this repo, nor for others to fork it. The GitHub terms of service section D.3 requires this permission.

[keilw]

@atsticks is about to address this with the current Spec Lead company (Credit Suisse). Please also see how JSR 107 was struggeling with a similar issue: https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec The license.txt and license headers were changed at least a year ago, but the MR ballot pased only a few days ago: https://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=6087

[argv-minus-one]

Apologies as I don't understand the JCP very much, but what does it have to do with the license published on GitHub? Was the Apache 2.0 license for JCache somehow invalid until the MR passed?

[keilw]

Yes, that's exactly the case, until MR1 the API was licensed under the Oracle/Sun JCP License that (if interpreted strictly by the word) e.g. would even require you to DESTROY every copy of the software after the evaluation has ended ;-) Spec Leads without a huge legal department on their hand were often pushed in earlier decades to use that license everywhere. Nowadays there is a common understanding this "Shrinkwrap License" more or less applies only to the Spec itself while the APIs and RI/TCK are licensed in almost every case (except Java SE/JDK maybe when it comes to future TCKs) under recognized Open Source licenses like Apache, BSD, MIT or Eclipse.

[keilw]

Based on their contributions to the API and/or Maintenance Lead roles, could @atsticks, @otaviojava, @chrisphe, @marschall, @reallyinsane, @dunschtig and @BenMorel please confirm (with thumbs-up) that you are happy with the API using the Apache License? @McPringle only made one contribution, but being vocal at conferences and also a JCP member, of course your voice is equally welcome.

There should be no -1 votes, otherwise we have to discuss it in detail if someone objected to this change. The Maintenance Leads have a binding vote, officially there is no EG at this point, but everyone who made a significant enough contribution to this repository should have a say if they care.

Thanks @argv-minus-one for bringing this up. Your +1 is already counted above although you have not pushed to this repository.

[keilw]

Thanks everyone who voted so far. Similar to e.g. Apache, let's leave this open till the end of the week.