Skip to Main Content
ApacheCon 2021 Coming Soon! The Apache Software Foundation
Apache 20th Anniversary Logo

Community-led development "The Apache Way"

Apache Support Logo

This was extracted (@ 2022-07-20 15:10) from a list of minutes which have been approved by the Board.
Please Note The Board typically approves the minutes of the previous meeting at the beginning of every Board meeting; therefore, the list below does not normally contain details from the minutes of the most recent Board meeting.

Meeting times vary, the exact schedule is available to ASF Members and Officers, search for "calendar" in the Foundation's private index page (svn:foundation/private-index.html).

Jakarta EE Relations

15 Jun 2022

A report was expected, but not received

18 May 2022

A report was expected, but not received

20 Apr 2022 [Rob Tompkins / Sander]

A report was expected, but not received

16 Mar 2022

A report was expected, but not received

16 Feb 2022

A report was expected, but not received

19 Jan 2022

A report was expected, but not received

15 Dec 2021

A report was expected, but not received

17 Nov 2021

A report was expected, but not received

20 Oct 2021 [Rob Tompkins / Sander]

This month again was fairly quiet. I've been watching the TomEE list to see if
they need any help with regards to the EE 9 TCK challenges. But they seem to
be doing fine navigating things on their own. We've had no messages on the
jcp-private list. So "all is quiet on the western front" :-p.


15 Sep 2021 [Rob Tompkins / Sander]

The past month(s) have been super busy with work so I don’t have a whole lot
to report. This month I plan to put in some hours to see if anyone needs any
correspondence between The Jakarta working group and our our EE related


18 Aug 2021

A report was expected, but not received

21 Jul 2021 [Rob Tompkins / Sheng]

My day job has had me fairly busy for the month, so I haven't done much in the
JakartaEE zone. Also it's looking like I'm going to generally get busier in
that zone over the coming months. I wonder if I should try to hand off the VP
position to David Blevins (of TomEE), as he seems to be the person who's most
in the middle of the relationship between Jakarta and the ASF. Curious to hear
your thoughts.


16 Jun 2021 [Rob Tompkins / Sharan]

Not much has happened since last month's joining announcement. Though, there
have been a few announcements about the establishment of our relationship

I have found that the Jakarta/Eclipse folks a little overwhelmingly
excited to post press releases about our membership, and I have been leaning
on the guidance of Sally Khudairi as to what is or isn't untoward from the
ASF's perspective. Our main point connection between the two organizations
continues to be TomEE.


19 May 2021 [Rob Tompkins / Sam]

I've signed us up to the Eclipse Foundation and the Jakarta EE working group.

Further we have made announcement to the PMCs (and not publicly from the ASF)
regarding our involvement. Regarding any messaging that I do about our
relationship with the Eclipse Foundation, I have found prudent to run by Sally
Khudairi, and I plan to continue to use her as a sounding board for any of my
messaging strategies as she has much more experience in this area than I do.

I am still working out all of the details of what the engagement requirements
are, but they seem not to be too overwhelming.


21 Apr 2021 [Rob Tompkins / Sheng]

Update here is that TomEE had a [VOTE] as to whether or not they wanted us to join Eclipse and consensus there dictated that it would be preferable for them [1]. So our intention is to indeed join as a Guest Member.


17 Mar 2021

A report was expected, but not received

17 Feb 2021

A report was expected, but not received

20 Jan 2021 [Rob Tompkins / Shane]

I've submitted the paperwork for the membership application. I'm now sorting
out what membership at the $0 level affords us. Apparently to have any stake
in things we may have to chip in more than $0 ($6075.25 approx. annually).
That said, I'm not sure what the appetite here is for that level of
involvement. I plan to further correspond via email to the board to ask if
there is any such appetite.

16 Dec 2020 [Rob Tompkins / Bertrand]

Not much to report since November’s report. I do know that there is active
movement towards TomEE’s Jakarta EE 8 and 9 certification.

I also plan to attend the board meeting next week to get the board’s opinion
on my actively pursuing the Apache Software Foundation becoming a guest
member of the Eclipse foundation.

18 Nov 2020 [Rob Tompkins / Justin]

I have established contact with the Jakarta EE team, and actually attended
one of their Jakarta EE working group calls.

From what I can tell we have two Apache members that seem to have close
contacts with the Jakarta EE community: Romain Manni-Bucau and Mark Thomas. I
believe that Romain has potentially paved the way for us to potentially
become Guest Members.

Lastly, I would like to note that there is appetite that the Apache Projects
that implement the Jakarta EE standard, use some form of the Jakarta logo on
their websites or with their marketing materials. Having spoken with
Mark Thomas about this, I’m not certain what appetite we have in accommodating
these changes. I would think that such an appetite would reside at the
project level if at all.

I would love to hear your thoughts on these matters, particularly if you
would think it prudent for me to start us down the path of establishing a
guest membership at Jakarta because they would need to have requisite votes
for us to establish ourselves in that manner.

21 Oct 2020

A report was expected, but not received

16 Sep 2020

A report was expected, but not received

15 Jul 2020 [Henri Yandell / Roy]

With the Jakarta EE role, there are two 'open' items:

1) We have an open offer from Eclipse to sit as a guest on their EE committee.
 I don't think we have an individual who is interested in doing that however.
 It feels to me that we either find a Jakarta EE replacement, or if one is
 not available, let Eclipse know that we don't have anyone. I would like to
 inform Eclipse that I'm stepping away from the role.

2) There will be a Java package rename coming in the next few months (though my
 info is limited due to my lack of recent focus). Projects will rename
 reactively, but an active person in the role could help us be more proactive.

17 Jun 2020 [Henri Yandell / Sander]

This month I communicated with Eclipse that:

* We won't claim exclusive rights to any contributions made to the JCP
  forums/lists/specs for <relevant JSRs>.
* But we won't sign something in which the ASF is claiming ownership of
  contributions made by our contributors to a third party (JCP).

I noted that I doubted there would be any energy to resolve differences of
opinion on interpretation of the JSPA, and they agreed that this wasn't worth
pursuing further. This closes out last month's A2 action item.

Remaining action items are:

 A1] Review documents for Apache joining Jakarta as a Guest Member and get
 these signed.

 A3] To communicate the topic to affected projects. This will probably mean a
 general communication to all committees visibly using Java, and directing
 them to jcp-open for follow-up.

20 May 2020 [Henri Yandell / Justin]

Not much progress this month. There was discussion on board regarding the
request from Eclipse for a copyright license for Apache contributions to the

My action items are:

 A1] Review documents for Apache joining Jakarta as a Guest Member and get
     these signed.

 A2] Propose text to indicate that: Insomuch as the ASF licensed
     copyright to the JCP, said copyright is also licensed to Eclipse.

I note that this month's TomEE report indicates that the summer release of
Jakarta EE 9 will involve a large breaking namespace change. A third action
item is:

 A3] To communicate the topic to affected projects. This will probably mean a
     general communication to all committees visibly using Java, and directing
     them to jcp-open for follow-up.

15 Apr 2020 [Henri Yandell / Patricia]

Some minor progress to report.

I've reviewed the emails over the last year and received valuable input from
Mark Struberg, David Blevins, and Mark Thomas.

I reached out to Mike Milinkovich and Paul Buck at Eclipse to determine the
current status of things.

My summary:

* There was a 2018-ish agreement on the Jakarta name signed by Mark Thomas.
* There was an invitation from Eclipse for Apache to join the Jakarta EE
 Working Group as a guest, with 2 agreements to sign.
* There was also IP moved from Oracle to Eclipse related to the JCP and a
 desire for Apache to sign something.
* There will be a big javax to jakarta package renaming coming down the

On these, the invitation is still open (#2) and there is still interest from
Eclipse in completing their diligence (#3).

My current action items are to identify the documents to be signed in #2 and
confirm that these were approved for signing; and to identify the mechanism by
which copyright licensing flowed from the ASF to the JCP so I understand what
copyright's in various JSRs the ASF may be able to license.

18 Mar 2020

A report was expected, but not received

19 Feb 2020

A report was expected, but not received

15 Jan 2020

A report was expected, but not received

18 Dec 2019

A report was expected, but not received

20 Nov 2019

A report was expected, but not received

16 Oct 2019

A report was expected, but not received

18 Sep 2019 [Mark Struberg / Myrle]

This is a report about the current status of the Eclipse JakarteEE relations.

I will reference the following documents in the further reading:

* Eclipse Foundation Specification License (EFSL [1])
* Eclipse Foundation TCK License (EFTL [2])
* Eclipse Foundation Specification Process (EFSP [3])

# Overview

The JakartaEE project hosts various specifications which are derived from
JavaEE JSRs. Each of them consists of 4 different parts.

1.) the APIs (e.g. JPA - Jakarta Persistence API)
2.) the Reference Implementation (RI, e.g. Eclipse EclipseLink)
3.) the TCKs (previously one big monolithic TCK with only a few specs having
their own separated ones)
4.) the spec documentation PDFs

# Ad 1 and 2 - APIs and RIs

The APIs owned by Oracle have been re-licensed to EPLv2 and donated to the
Eclipse Foundation. Other APIs - mostly owned by IBM and RedHat - have been
ALv2 ever since and afaik have also been donated to the EF. Reference
Implementations have to be licensed under an 'Open Source Lincense' as defined
by the EFSP. Which are EPLv2 or ALv2.

Future development of spec APIs will happen under either EPLv2 or ALv2
(based on what each specification decides). This is legally perfectly fine for
 us to both contribute to and consume under (at worst) CatB [4].

# Ad 3 & 4 - TCKs and Specification Documents

Some TCKs are ALv2: JBatch, CDI, Bean Validation. Most others got donated from
Oracle to the Eclipse Foundation and are now licensed under EPLv2. I want to
take this opportunity to say thanks to Oracle for this gracious move!

There is one little complicated detail though. When a final specification gets
ratified it will be published and distributed under the EFSL resp EFTL. This
procedure is defined in the EFSP. Note that neither the EFSL nor EFTL are OSI
licensed and never will be due to not allowing any modifications which makes
them not an OSS license.

The Specification Document for the Final Specification must be distributed as
read-only text under the Eclipse Foundation Specification License. The
Ratified TCK in composite must be distributed under the Eclipse Foundation
Technology Compatibility Kit License.

This could legally be achieved via either sub-licensing or re-licensing. The
Eclipse ECA [5] explicitly talks about sublicensing. That means we would be
fine to contribute to and consume TCKs and Specs _under work_ as well.
The IP flow is that contributions to the TCK and Spec Documents are performed
under ALv2 or EPLv2. And we can also consume those bits. The final versions
though are ratified and bundled under very restrictive non-OSS licenses which
you only get if one passes the TCK and are certified.

There is also an Eclipse Foundation IP Policy [6] to which the EFSP refers to.
It only applies to Specification Reviews. It contains some patent grant
clauses which need to be further evaluated. In a first review they look
roughly equivalent to the patent grant we have in ALv2. But this needs some
more legal review. Interestingly this only becomes effective during the review
and not during contributing. But the review and voting on the specs is only a
small group of people/companies and not all contributors.

# Other business

The Eclipse Foundation reached out to us to help them collect IP for existing
specification documents. Oracle transferred their right to the EF as far as
they did hold them. They of course could only transfer IP they own themselves.
Whether there is anything uncovered is an open question. The EF now reached
out to us to also grant them rights for parts some ASF committers provided 'on
behalf of the ASF'. Our current legal conclusio is that the ASF itself cannot
do this but we will help to identify the individuals in question.

# Summary

* The ASF (or it's individuals) can both consume from and contribute to APIs
  and Reference Implementations.
* The ASF can both consume from and contribute to TCKs and Spec Documents
  _under development_.
* Consuming the final ratified EFSL and EFTCK licensed specs and TCKs are out
  of scope for the ASF without restricting us in any way.
* The patent handling for contributors needs another review.


21 Aug 2019

A report was expected, but not received

17 Jul 2019 [Mark Struberg / Craig]

## Description:
 Apache Jakarta EE Relations exists to discover how the ASF can work together
 with the Eclipse Foundations Jakarta EE working group.

## Issues:
 - There are no issues requiring board attention at this time.

## Activity:
 The initial setup still has to be done. Do we need a mailing list and who
 else want's to provide input on the matter?

19 Jun 2019

Appoint a Vice President of Jakarta EE Relations

 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests
 of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to
 appoint an officer responsible for being the primary liaison with the
 Eclipse Jakarta EE Platform.

 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the office of "Vice President,
 Jakarta EE" be and hereby is created, the person holding such office
 to serve at the direction of the Board, and to have primary
 responsibility of managing the foundation's Jakarta EE strategy; and
 be it further

 RESOLVED, that Mark Struberg be and hereby is appointed to the office
 of Vice President, Jakarta EE, to serve in accordance with and subject
 to the direction of the Board until death, resignation, retirement,
 removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed.

 Special Order 7E, Appoint a Vice President of Jakarta EE
 Relations, was approved by Unanimous Vote of the directors