Review request for OPENJDK6-32: OpenJDK6-b31 isn't compatible with Windows platform

[Ivan Krylov]

Hi Andrew,

Neither me nor Vladislav are lowers so we can’t make proper judgement. That is why we follow instructions we are given internally.

However in my best understanding the phrase “... are made available on the same license terms set forth above” exactly states that we do not alter the license terms that pre-existed for those files and the contribution is made in full compliance with those terms. I think that this way Azul is verbose about the terms under which the code is contributed to the project which are exactly the same terms as there were before.

Sure, feel free to contact both Oracle and Azul for clarification on this matter.

Thanks,

Ivan

On 30 May 2014, at 19:44, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 05/30/2014 03:26 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>> 
>>> sorry for the late reply.
>>> 
>>> This header was suggested by our legal, so I’m just following the rules here.
>>> 
>> 
>> I had a feeling it would be something like that. Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> The rule as I understand it is that people can include their own copyright
> (as in (C) Red Hat 2014, etc.) but cannot change any of the licence terms.
> 
> I'm not at all sure what this change of yours does.  The problem is that we
> might have to contact Oracle's lawyers, and that would take forever.  I don't
> know why you have to add extra wordage, and it does complicate things.
> 
> Andrew.
> 
> 
>