Fixes of copyright headers: Should we downport them?

[Andrew Haley]

Hi,

On 3/27/20 7:32 AM, Langer, Christoph wrote:
>>
>> Please let's not go down this rabbit hole. When we change stuff, we
>> have to update the copyright date. This is especially true when we
>> back-port patches from a file (c) Oracle dated, say, 2020 to one dated
>> 2016. We must never take code which is copyright 2020, paste it into a
>> file dated 2016, and not update the copyright in the destination
>> file. It's easiest just to update the copyright on the file we're
>> patching to the current date.
>
> Hm, probably you're right with that. However, actually, for process
> simplicity's sake, I think we're doing quite some mistakes in that
> sense though.
>
> Because currently, if a backport change happens to be the one that
> updated a copyright year, we'll do it correctly and also increment
> the copyright year in the backported file. But if we're bringing
> down a change that has happened over the year, that is, after some
> other change previously had to update the copyright year, we'll miss
> that and have newer code than the copyright year indicates in
> certain files.
>
> I guess this process is that what Oracle does and what they laid out
> when owning the updates project. But do we need to adjust this?

I'd just update the destination file to the current date. But please
don't go back making changes to work we've already done: it's not
hugely important, IMO.

> Other than that, I see no point in rejecting backports of changes
> like https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8220414. All the
> change does is correct the formatting of the license header to
> Oracle's standards (the comma after the second year). I don't know
> whether this comma is legally important or just a formatting thing
> but in any case, I think it corrects something which was wrong
> before. So we could admit it. But, of course, such backports should
> rather be in Oracle's interest and they only affect legal compliance
> and don't touch functionality at all, so if nobody in the community
> does backport it, it shouldn't matter either.

Exactly.

Let's remember what we're here for: our purpose is to fix significant
bugs and, occasionally, maintain compatibility. By default, we should
do nothing. If it doesn't fix a bug or enhance our users' experience
it shouldn't go in.

> After all, it all comes down to a legal discussion - and so, since
> I'm not a lawyer and not deeply into licensing laws, everything I
> say in this mail is likely to be wrong ... ��

Indeed, and arguing this stuff isn't a tremendously useful way to
spend our time.

-- 
Andrew Haley  (he/him)
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
https://keybase.io/andrewhaley
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671