RFR: JDK-8178064: OpenJDK RI binary should include the license file for freetype

Erik Joelsson erik.joelsson at oracle.com
Thu Jun 8 09:28:04 UTC 2017


Hello,

On 2017-06-08 10:56, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Erik,
>
> My only concern is that when doing the bundling, we assume that 
> FREETYPE_LICENSE is set, but no verification of this is done in 
> configure. That is, either should the SetupCopyFiles block be 
> conditional on the license file existing, or the code in 
> LIB_SETUP_FREETYPE should verify that we have a license if bundling is 
> enabled. I think enforcing a license file when bundling is the reight 
> way, so this means adding a check in configure.
>
I disagree. SetupCopyFiles is designed to work fine if the FILES input 
is empty. It will just generate 0 rules in that case, so this is 
intended from my part. I do make sure that it's empty in configure so we 
don't accidentally get rubbish in it however. We do not want to enforce 
FREETYPE_LICENSE to be set as we are not going to bundle a license for 
GPL (default) builds, but only when using a different license for the 
rest of OpenJDK.

/Erik

> Apart from that it looks good.
>
> I'm also ok if you push this code as it is in jdk9 and file a 
> follow-up bug for jdk 10 of adding the verification to configure.
>
> /Magnus
>
>
> On 2017-06-07 16:14, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Please review this late change for JDK 9. It adds a new configure 
>> parameter --with-freetype-license, which can optionally be set to 
>> point to a license file for freetype. If freetype bundling is 
>> enabled, this license file will be included in the java.desktop.jmod 
>> file and subsequently in the images/{jdk,jre}/legal/java.desktop 
>> directory.
>>
>> Note that freetype comes with a dual license. For normal GPL OpenJDK 
>> builds, no additional license is needed as freetype is also GPL. This 
>> feature is only needed when someone is licensing OpenJDK with a 
>> different license (which the Oracle reference implementation builds do).
>>
>> This change is considered noreg-doc and will go into jdk9.
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8178064
>>
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8178064/webrev.01
>>
>> /Erik
>>
>




More information about the build-dev mailing list