search

jakartaee / specification-committee

Documentation base for Specification Committee guides and process to be published at jakarta.ee via Hugo and git submodules
Eclipse Public License 2.0
8 stars 22 forks source link

Clarify in spec review that copyright isn't always Eclipse Foundation #7

Closed scottkurz closed 5 years ago

scottkurz commented 5 years ago

Signed-off-by: Scott Kurz skurz@us.ibm.com

Looking at the review checklist, I realized Batch was a special case with an IBM copyright.

Maybe this rewrite is a bit wordy so feel free to condense.

scottkurz commented 5 years ago

My understanding is that the final versions of the specs are required by the EFSL to be copyright Eclipse Foundation.

I wasn't referring to the copyright in the spec, but the copyright in the generated Javadoc. From this thread I thought we cleared up that the generated Javadoc needed the EFSL license but hadn't seen that the copyright holder should be listed as "Eclipse Foundation". In any case, will be good to hear clarification.

waynebeaton commented 5 years ago

My understanding is that the final versions of the specs are required by the EFSL to be copyright Eclipse Foundation.

@waynebeaton please confirm.

Confirmed.

scottkurz commented 5 years ago

@waynebeaton thx for taking a look.. did you see though that I was referring to the copyright in the Javadoc, not the copyright in the specs?

bshannon commented 5 years ago

The javadoc is part of the spec.

kwsutter commented 5 years ago

Thanks for this clarification, @waynebeaton and @bshannon. I tried asking this question on this morning's call, but we were trying to do so many things, it got lost in the shuffle. At least now we have an answer. Thanks!

starksm64 commented 5 years ago

I don’t see how that is possible for CDI, for example, as the project has just been moved over to Eclipse, but the copyrights have not been assigned to Eclipse. The Apache License does not require reassignment of copyright in order to be able to relicense as EFSL. Our legal team has suggested all that is required is to have a statement like:

This specification is licensed under the Eclipse Foundation Specification License 1.0; this specification is based on material that is licensed under the Apache License, version 2.0.

On Aug 7, 2019, at 2:23 PM, Wayne Beaton notifications@github.com wrote:

My understanding is that the final versions of the specs are required by the EFSL to be copyright Eclipse Foundation.

@waynebeaton https://github.com/waynebeaton please confirm.

Confirmed.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/jakartaee/specification-committee/pull/7?email_source=notifications&email_token=AACRDMQ3KR3SBRJGANOG7B3QDM4OLA5CNFSM4IKBWAAKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD3ZX7AI#issuecomment-519274369, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACRDMRIGWNKK24YWOG746LQDM4OLANCNFSM4IKBWAAA.

bshannon commented 5 years ago

The published specifications need to be under EFSL. And yes, they're derived from content licensed under other licenses. I'll leave it to Eclipse legal to determine if or how we need to attribute the license of the content they're derived from.