Yep that was the point. So I was asking if we should do the same yes or not.
That seems to be your opinion Romain. Mark on the other end is having some doubts about the license. -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:31 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: > Le mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:29, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > [email protected]> > a écrit : > > > Thanks Romain. I'm fine with using Eclipse jars if from a legal point of > > view, it works. > > Otherwise, I'd like to split our spec jars. > > > > What about MicroProfile? > > > > We already agreed to not redo the API and use microprofile jars. > > > > It's the same license and we are using them in our MicroProfile > > implementations. > > -- > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:26 PM Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> depends what their license is. EPL is (weak) copyleft. Thus I would like > >> to avoid exposing it downstream as api. > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > Am 03.09.2019 um 16:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> [email protected]>: > >> > > >> > If we still can't reuse jakata artifacts (their license is ok and > there > >> is > >> > no impl reference inside so we should just use them, right?) it sounds > >> > natural > >> > > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > >> > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > >> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > >> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > >> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > >> > < > >> > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Le mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 16:18, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > >> [email protected]> > >> > a écrit : > >> > > >> >> Hi all, > >> >> > >> >> I was digging into some other specifications and see what would pass > >> >> Jakarta TCK and realized that geronimo-security_1.0_spec content > >> actually > >> >> mixes 2 specifications. > >> >> > >> >> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/security-api > >> >> > >> >> and > >> >> > >> >> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaspic > >> >> > >> >> I thought the initial intent was to create a specific artifact per > >> >> specification. > >> >> Mixing them is a bit annoying from a certification perspective. > >> >> It's also not clean because in Tomcat for instance, there is already > >> >> jaspic API so it becomes a duplicate. > >> >> > >> >> Would it be possible to split them up in 2 artifacts? > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Jean-Louis Monteiro > >> >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > >> >> http://www.tomitribe.com > >> >> > >> > >> >
