Re: Jakarta EE TCKs and compatibility logo

[David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>]

Following up on some offline threads.  High level status of the steps and progress.


  1. We join the Eclipse Foundation as a n on-voting Associate Member ($0) -
     the Membership Agreement and Membership Application are both here
     <https://www.eclipse.org/membership/become_a_member/>   

     [in review?]
     
  2. A Jakarta EE WG member nominates the ASF as a Guest Member of the working
     group. Guest Members must be voted in by the Jakarta EE Steering
     Committee, and re-approved annually.

     [done]

  3. We join the Jakarta EE Working Group as a Guest
     Member which will require signing the Working Group
     Participation Agreement. The current version of the agreement is
     listed under Related Links here
     <https://www.eclipse.org/org/workinggroups/about.php>  and
     requires execution of the main agreement and Exhibit J.  

     [in review?]
     
  4. The use of the Jakarta EE Compatible trademark is defined in the
     Jakarta EE Trademark Guidelines
     <https://jakarta.ee/legal/trademark_guidelines/>. 

     [in review?]

  5. Once the Jakarta EE Trademark Agreement is defined, Eclipse will need
     us to execute that as well, as per the guidelines. This trademark agreement 
     is still under development.

     [eclipse action item. still in progress]

Items 1, 3 & 4 action items on our side.  Do we have ETAs for any of them?

Items 2 & 5 are action items on the Eclipse/Working Group side, 2 is done.  I'll get an ETA on 5.

Is there any way I can help with our action items?  Being on the WG I can definitely provide answers as well as bring concerns.


-David


> On Jan 18, 2019, at 2:53 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I am writing to your dev@ lists (on BCC) as your project has, in the
> past, requested access to the Java EE TCKs while they were controlled by
> Sun and then Oracle.
> 
> As I am sure you are aware, Java EE has moved to Eclipse and is now
> Jakarta EE. The good news is that the TCKs have been open sourced.
> 
> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck
> 
> (I haven't tried to build the latest TCK from source yet but it is on my
> TODO list.)
> 
> Shipping compatible implementations of the Jakarta EE specs (and being
> able to make public statements to that effect) will be subject only to
> the spec [1] and TCK [2] licenses. There will no longer be a TCK
> agreement or NDA to sign. However...
> 
> The question has arisen whether or not any ASF projects will want to use
> the Jakarta EE compatible logo [3]. If a project wants to be able to do
> this, there are some organisational hoops to jump through. Before the
> ASF starts down that path the board has asked me to see if there are any
> projects that want to use the Jakarta EE compatible logo. After all,
> there is no point jumping through the hoops if no-one wants to use the logo.
> 
> With the above in mind can you please discuss this amongst your project
> community and reply back to jcp-open@apache.org whether or not your
> project is interested in being able to use the Jakarta EE compatible
> logo. I ask that you complete this no later than the next board meeting
> (20th February 2019).
> 
> If you have any questions about any of the above, please also use
> jcp-open@apache.org to ask them.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> [1] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/efsl.php
> [2] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/tck.php
> [3] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/tck.php

Re: Jakarta EE TCKs and compatibility logo

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

Feeling a bit nostalgic, I took a peek.  Other than offering to sign
on specific piece, I'm not writing this with any particular hat on,
other than perhaps being one of the members of the legal affairs
committee.

TL;DR: my read is that yes we can get a free Associate Membership, but
that doesn't give us what we want/need.  Other levels of membership
require fees, and that is a non-starter.  Please let me know if I'm
reading this wrong.

All things considered, this appears to be a considerably better
starting position than we ever got from Sun or Oracle, and if Eclipse
is willing to consider a few changes/clarifications, perhaps we can
find a way to make it work.

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 4:48 PM David Blevins <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Following up on some offline threads.  High level status of the steps and progress.
>
>   1. We join the Eclipse Foundation as a n on-voting Associate Member ($0) -
>      the Membership Agreement and Membership Application are both here
>      <https://www.eclipse.org/membership/become_a_member/>
>
>      [in review?]

The agreement seems innocuous.  We provide organizational information
(essentially a mailing address), the name of a company representative,
marketing representative, and a billing contact (presumably
non-applicable, but we can certainly provide a contact at Virtual),
and indicate that we are a "Non-Profit Open Source Organization".
Nothing concerning here.

The key agreement is section D, and I don't see any problems there either:

"As a new member we agree to publicly announce that we have joined the
Eclipse Foundation, Inc.

As a Member of Eclipse Foundation we agree to provide Eclipse
Foundation with a logo (or directions to obtain a logo) for the
Foundation’s use in recognizing Member’s relationship with the Eclipse
Foundation. See
https://www.eclipse.org/membership/exploreMembership.php for a full
list of members."

So, +1 on signing this.  At the moment, we don't have a designated
officer dedicated to this role.  If there are no objections, I'm
willing to sign this on the ASF's behalf.  If there are objections or
somebody feels that they should be the one to sign, I would defer to
them.

>   2. A Jakarta EE WG member nominates the ASF as a Guest Member of the working
>      group. Guest Members must be voted in by the Jakarta EE Steering
>      Committee, and re-approved annually.
>
>      [done]
>
>   3. We join the Jakarta EE Working Group as a Guest
>      Member which will require signing the Working Group
>      Participation Agreement. The current version of the agreement is
>      listed under Related Links here
>      <https://www.eclipse.org/org/workinggroups/about.php>  and
>      requires execution of the main agreement and Exhibit J.
>
>      [in review?]

The bulk of this agreement seems to resolve around fees.  If our fees
are non-zero, that's a deal breaker.  If our fees are zero, much of
this agreement is non-applicable.  Along these lines, I have
significant concern about section 3.  My read is that as an open
source organization we can get an Affiliate membership, but such does
not get us a seat in a working group.  The agreement to join the
working group requires us to up our membership to the Solutions
member, which is not made available for free.  It also requires us to
make a commercial Eclipse-based offering within 12 months.

There is a section (7) which mentions that we may get working group
private and re-distributable binary materials.  I'm OK with the
private, and presume that we will avoid working groups that include a
requirement for an Object Code License as that too would be a
dealbreaker.

I would not recommend that we proceed with this agreement until we get
these issues resolved.

Also, it is not clear to me what "Exhibit J" refers to.

>   4. The use of the Jakarta EE Compatible trademark is defined in the
>      Jakarta EE Trademark Guidelines
>      <https://jakarta.ee/legal/trademark_guidelines/>.
>
>      [in review?]

Until we decide what we want to do, I'm not sure what there is to
review here.  As Mark indicated earlier, it is entirely possible that
we could decide not to make use of the Jakarta EE Compatible mark.

If we do decide we want to use this mark, my reading of this agreement
is that requires either unanimous approval or for us to sign up for
even higher level of membership in the Eclipse Organization.

At the moment, there are too many conditional possibilities involved
to make further recommendations.

>   5. Once the Jakarta EE Trademark Agreement is defined, Eclipse will need
>      us to execute that as well, as per the guidelines. This trademark agreement
>      is still under development.
>
>      [eclipse action item. still in progress]
>
> Items 1, 3 & 4 action items on our side.  Do we have ETAs for any of them?
>
> Items 2 & 5 are action items on the Eclipse/Working Group side, 2 is done.  I'll get an ETA on 5.
>
> Is there any way I can help with our action items?  Being on the WG I can definitely provide answers as well as bring concerns.

I've posted my thoughts publicly, feel free to share them.  While my
thoughts alone don't have any particular official status, if the
issues mentioned above can be resolved, getting Brand Management and
Legal Affairs signoff should be easier.

> -David

- Sam Ruby

> > On Jan 18, 2019, at 2:53 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am writing to your dev@ lists (on BCC) as your project has, in the
> > past, requested access to the Java EE TCKs while they were controlled by
> > Sun and then Oracle.
> >
> > As I am sure you are aware, Java EE has moved to Eclipse and is now
> > Jakarta EE. The good news is that the TCKs have been open sourced.
> >
> > https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck
> >
> > (I haven't tried to build the latest TCK from source yet but it is on my
> > TODO list.)
> >
> > Shipping compatible implementations of the Jakarta EE specs (and being
> > able to make public statements to that effect) will be subject only to
> > the spec [1] and TCK [2] licenses. There will no longer be a TCK
> > agreement or NDA to sign. However...
> >
> > The question has arisen whether or not any ASF projects will want to use
> > the Jakarta EE compatible logo [3]. If a project wants to be able to do
> > this, there are some organisational hoops to jump through. Before the
> > ASF starts down that path the board has asked me to see if there are any
> > projects that want to use the Jakarta EE compatible logo. After all,
> > there is no point jumping through the hoops if no-one wants to use the logo.
> >
> > With the above in mind can you please discuss this amongst your project
> > community and reply back to jcp-open@apache.org whether or not your
> > project is interested in being able to use the Jakarta EE compatible
> > logo. I ask that you complete this no later than the next board meeting
> > (20th February 2019).
> >
> > If you have any questions about any of the above, please also use
> > jcp-open@apache.org to ask them.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > [1] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/efsl.php
> > [2] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/tck.php
> > [3] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/tck.php
>