Is third party code included in langtools sources?

[Ulf Zibis]

This problem was also discussed from NetBeans side: 
http://www.nabble.com/-65cat---other--Installation-and-other-issues-with-openjdk-to19034100.html#a19063742

-Ulf


Am 05.08.2008 19:12, Yulia Novozhilova schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> Could you please, help me to answer a question:
> Is third party code included in langtools sources?
> If "no" then _why_  the THIRD_PARTY_README and ASSEMBLY_EXCEPTION 
> files are included into the repository?
>
> Actually I'm working on the Debian/Ubuntu native packaging for 
> NetBeans IDE.
> NetBeans uses javac that is a fork of the langtools repository:
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/langtools/
>
> So I have to create a debian package for it.  The problem is that 
> Debian policy is strict about license:
> I must point the license for each file in the upstream source (files 
> from langtools repository). Currently I can't explain why
> THIRD_PARTY_README and ASSEMBLY_EXCEPTION are in the upstream. Are 
> there any files that need them?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> -Yulia
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Betreff:
> Re: [nb-linux] The NetBeans Javaparser sources for NetBeans 6.1
> Von:
> Jan Lahoda <Jan.Lahoda at Sun.COM>
> Datum:
> Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:51:48 +0200
> An:
> Yulia Novozhilova <Yulia.Novozhilova at Sun.COM>
>
> An:
> Yulia Novozhilova <Yulia.Novozhilova at Sun.COM>
> CC:
> Jan Becicka <Jan.Becicka at Sun.COM>, 
> linux-packaging at installer.netbeans.org, Petr Hrebejk 
> <Petr.Hrebejk at Sun.COM>, Alexei Mokeev <Alexei.Mokeev at Sun.COM>
>
>
> Hi,
>    the NetBeans javac is a fork of the javac from the OpenJDK. More 
> precisely, we use a fork of the langtools repository:
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/langtools/
>
> The THIRD_PARTY_README and ASSEMBLY_EXCEPTION files originate in this 
> repository. I am not sure if we can simply delete them. Better 
> solution, in my opinion, would be to ask the maintainers of 
> OpenJDK/langtools repository whether these files could be removed from 
> the original langtools repository (I do not think these are needed for 
> langtools, but IANAL). We could adopt the change in our fork easily.
>
> Jan
>
> Yulia Novozhilova wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As nobody responds I think it is better to use the same license and 
>> copyright files for packaging as we've used for javaparser-6.0:
>>  http://java.netbeans.org/files/documents/25/1798/nb-javaparser-6.0-src.zip 
>>
>>
>> nb-javaparser-6.0-src.zip doesn't contain THIRD_PARTY_README and 
>> ASSEMBLY_EXCEPTION, so
>>
>> Honza, could you please, ___remove___ these files from the
>>
>> http://java.netbeans.org/files/documents/25/2033/nb-javaparser-6.1-src.zip 
>> ?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Yulia
>>
>>
>> Yulia Novozhilova wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Could someone explain me how to determine what license .java file 
>>> (for example) is under?
>>> I definitely don't understand why we need THIRD_PARTY_README and 
>>> ASSEMBLY_EXCEPTION for javaparser upstream.
>>> Does third party code is included there? How can I check that?
>>> I've looked through the source code  in  
>>> http://java.netbeans.org/files/documents/25/2033/nb-javaparser-6.1-src.zip 
>>>
>>> and couldn't find any copyright mentioned in THIRD_PARTY_README.
>>>
>>> Furthermore for NetBeans we remove all license files from the 
>>> upstream, including THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.txt and leave
>>> one LICENSE file with GNU and CDDL licenses.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Yulia
>>>
>>> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>>> Marek Slama wrote:
>>>>> Question: What is THIRD_PARTY_README good for? 
>>>>
>>>> In OpenJDK, we use that file to track licenses of third party code 
>>>> included in the source code,
>>>> so that downstream knows what the ingredients are. See 
>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/file/3300a35a0bd5/THIRD_PARTY_README 
>>>> for an example.
>>>>> It is necessary to include this?
>>>> It makes the life of the packager easier, in general, since Debian, 
>>>> for example, wants to know what
>>>> licenses all the code in a project is under, including third party 
>>>> code that's included in the sources.
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> dalibor topic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>