THIRD_PARTY_README mangled

[Brad Wetmore]

Since there are unanswered questions remaining, rather than my 
attempting to push through a possibly incorrect change to one (or more) 
the THIRD_PARTY_READMEs, I'm going to back off of this one and let 
Vinnie properly address it when he returns to work.

Brad



Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> re-send, with corrected CC list...
> 
> -kto
> 
> Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>> I recall some issues needing to be fixed in these files, I would hate to
>> loose those fixes, whatever they were.
>>
>> The question is, do they all need to be the same, or can they be
>> allowed to drift independently.
>> Some of these repositories have a degree of independence, and some
>> of the information in this readme doesn't apply to all repositories.
>>
>> Not sure it's fair to RE to make them responsible for keeping all
>> 7 copies merged, so if it's 'one', anyone changing the file will need
>> to change all 7 copies.
>>
>> I'm not sure where the original copy came from, but it's generally
>> not an accepted policy to reformat these things, although I did see
>> some strange non-printing characters in these files in the past.
>>
>> -kto
>>
>> Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>> Would it make sense to have master copies of these licenses 
>>> somewhere, and have RE
>>> update these THIRD_PARTY_README files automatically when needed, much 
>>> as they
>>> update copyrights and/or validate the legal notices in source files?
>>>
>>> -- Jon
>>>
>>>
>>> Brad Wetmore wrote:
>>>> Tim/Kelly, why are there copies of the THIRD_PARTY_README in 7 
>>>> different repositories?  We started with 7 identical copies, but now 
>>>> they have diverged into two different versions following Tim's 
>>>> putback.  Are they supposed to be all the same?  What's the intent 
>>>> here?  See below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Martin,
>>>>
>>>> > It appears that some licenses are correctly included verbatim,
>>>> > and some are gratuitously reformatted.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not seeing this reformatting you're talking about...
>>>>
>>>> What I do see here...there are now two different versions of the 
>>>> THIRD_PARTY_README in the repositories.  I don't know why or what 
>>>> was intended (above).
>>>>
>>>> 1)  There was an initial load in all these workspaces:
>>>>
>>>> ., corba, hotspot, langtools, jaxp, jaxws, jdk
>>>>
>>>> All the README files are identical.  (same sums)
>>>>
>>>> 2)  The following workspaces were updated by Tim Bell to add 
>>>> something by Marti Maria, and remove something by Peter Norvig.
>>>>
>>>> jaxp, jaxws, jdk
>>>>
>>>> This were done under three different bugs:
>>>>
>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jaxp/raw-rev/b56d870cb5c8
>>>> 6738894: Merge jaxp fixes from 6 update train into OpenJDK 6 and 7
>>>>
>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jaxws/raw-rev/31822b475baa
>>>> 6831313: update jaxws in OpenJDK7 to 2.1 plus bug fixes from OpenJDK 6
>>>>
>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jdk/raw-rev/13cd6eb34cfa
>>>> 6695776: corba jscheme jar files in repository could be built from 
>>>> source
>>>>
>>>> I didn't see any reformatting.
>>>>
>>>> 3)  All of the workspaces were updated by Abhijit for a copyright 
>>>> date change (2005 to 2007):
>>>>
>>>> 6803688: Integrate latest JAX-WS (2.1.6) in to JDK 6u14
>>>>
>>>> For some reason, the same change went into the jaxws repository but 
>>>> under a different bugid.
>>>>
>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/jaxws/diff/860b95cc8d1d/THIRD_PARTY_README 
>>>>
>>>> 6813167: 6u14 JAX-WS audit mutable static bugs
>>>>
>>>> Again, I'm not seeing any reformatting.
>>>>
>>>> Brad
>>>
>>