Copyright cleanup project

[Volker Simonis]

Hi Joe,

does this project only apply to files where Oracle is the sole copyright holder?

What about files with two copyright holders?

E.g. hotspot/src/share/vm/utilities/elfFuncDescTable.cpp

 * Copyright (c) 1997, 2013, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
 * Copyright 2012, 2013 SAP AG. All rights reserved.

Regards,
Volker


On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Joseph D. Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Most source files in the OpenJDK forest start with a comment block listing
> the copyright holder, for example,
>
>     Copyright (c) 2014, 2015, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights
> reserved.
>
> followed by the license the copyright holder is providing for the file. The
> typical licenses for source files in OpenJDK are GPL v2, GPL v2 with the
> ClassPath exception, and BSD where BSD is primarily used on samples and
> demos.
>
> Templates for those copyright notices can be found in the JDK 9 forest under
> $ROOT/make/templates
>
> Various inconsistencies in these copyrights and licenses have been noticed.
> For example, sometimes the year range is formatted differently or there are
> extraneous extra lines in the license block. In some other cases, a properly
> formatted copyright and license is present, but an inappropriate license is
> used; for example, a test file has GPL with ClassPath exception where GPL is
> more appropriate.
>
> To help correct and regularize the licenses and copyrights, Vassili
> Igouchkine has developed tooling to analyze these portions of the source
> files. Vassili will be sending out code reviews for changes addressing the
> sorts of problems outlined above. The changes will target JDK 9 and be sent
> to aliases appropriate for the code being modified. In particular, precise
> checks will be applied to files where Oracle is the copyright holder. In the
> future, Vassili plans to develop a programmatic check for the licenses and
> copyrights that can catch both syntactic problems and well as improper
> licensing. The check will be something developers can run on their
> changesets before pushing. (This is not the sort of check believed to be
> suitable for inclusion in jcheck.)
>
> While many of the corrections will be straightforward to review, others will
> be be tricky given the complicated history of some parts of the code. Please
> assist Vassili in this cleanup effort by providing prompt reviews.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Joe
>