OpenJDK Bugzilla server rollout
Andrew John Hughes
gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org
Wed Feb 11 20:09:48 UTC 2009
2009/2/11 David Herron <davidh at 7gen.com>:
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> 2009/2/11 Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org>:
>
>
> Hi Brad,
>
> On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 21:12 -0800, Brad Wetmore wrote:
>
>
> As I posted on the discuss list earlier this week [1], I have set up an
> instance of Bugzilla for use by the various OpenJDK efforts.
>
> The system is now live. Please see the project page at:
>
> http://openjdk.java.net/groups/web/bugzilla.html
>
> for general notes, instructions, and the URL.
>
> I've made an initial pass at configuration with feedback from several
> folks, but I know we will continue tuning this system to best fit our needs.
>
>
> Thanks for setting this up. A quick question before I start using this.
>
> It says "Please review the Terms of Use". This is the first bugzilla
> instance I know that comes with a four page legal requirements document
> before usage. I started printing them out and reviewing them as
> requested but they seem somewhat odd. They require signing over rights
> to Collabnet, O'Reilly and Sun of any source code posted, can be changed
> at any time without notice, so you will have to review them each time
> you file a new bug, and any legal disputes need to be fought in a
> foreign country at the other side of the world. They all seem a bit out
> of place for the OpenJDK community usage, I suspect they were
> copy/pasted from some unrelated project. Can we get rid of them?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> +1
>
> Applying the java.net terms of use wholesale and without alteration to
> the unrelated OpenJDK project seems very odd. We already have the GPL
> for licensing the project and the SCA to handle contributions. These
> terms of use go far beyond 'Users uploading inappropriate materials'
> and I don't see why we are handing any rights over to OReilly or
> Collab who have nothing to do with the OpenJDK project.
>
>
> +1
>
> I understand that Sun has a requirement to have privacy policies and other
> legalisms. Some kind of terms of use agreement is going to be required.
> Most collaborative websites have terms of use requirements.
>
> Since openjdk.java.net is not administered by CollabNet, it seems that
> reusing the java.net terms of use (which involves CollabNet) on a sub-site
> that isn't administered by CollabNet feels odd.
>
> There is at least one value for rights assignment of posted source code.
> It's the ability to convert a unit test posted in a bug report into an
> official unit test in the source tree.
>
> There was an idea I started to work on a couple months ago, while still a
> Sun employee, to make a similar terms of use change for bugs.sun.com bugs.
> The bugs.sun.com terms of use does not allow reuse of posted source code for
> other purposes. Sometimes the code a bug reportee posts in their bug report
> is a useful valid unit test and it would be cool to repurpose that code into
> a normal unit test. But just like any other source code submission, Sun's
> policy is it requires rights assignment for copyright sharing. e.g. that's
> the purpose of the SCA, right? But if the bug submissions place, whether
> it's bugs.sun.com or bugs.openjdk.java.net, doesn't have copyright
> assignment then by Sun's policies as I understand them the source cannot be
> reused in other places. I'd chatted with the Sun manager who oversees the
> bugs.sun.com process, he liked the idea, but neither of us had time to take
> it further.
>
> - David Herron
>
>
>
>
Ok I only just noticed this and I don't know how binding they are but:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo
links to the same terms of use. So do O'Reilly now own all the
patches posted to the lists? I don't see how any of use ever
signified our compliance with these terms.
--
Andrew :-)
Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net
PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
More information about the discuss
mailing list