RFR - JDK-8149776 - BSD license for jimage code

[Mario Torre]

2016-02-15 15:39 GMT+01:00 James Laskey <james.laskey at oracle.com>:
> Mario,
>
> The "restricted bug report" was totally a green horn error made by me, the author of the code.  I wanted to track the end of process approval for the licensing change by Oracle in the bug and marked it as confidential since it was an internal comment. Mark will likely address your concerns when available, but this was purely an error on my part.

Hi Jim,

Sure, I'm sorry if I sounded overly conservative over this change. I
didn't mean to question the change in itself really, and also,
according to the bylaw - if I read it correctly - I believe the BSD
falls into the list of pre-approved licenses for the Project:

http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#_A

So probably this is ok anyway.

What I questioned was the way the change has been addressed without
context, and I appreciate your statement that this is just a simple
mistake.

I had an interesting discussion with my colleagues if a License change
(specifically one that falls over the pre-approved list of licenses)
falls into "normal business", like any other code change or fix, or if
it should instead be handled specially as I asked by the GB, so I
would still like to have this authoritative answer.

That being said, I still would like context for the actual change if
possible, I just quote Andrew Dinn reply as to why this is needed:

"""
The only general concern I have here -- i.e. beyond the basic request
itself -- is that those of us who wish to contribute to the open source
code can be aware of why changes are being made and have some confidence
that the rationale for them is coherent.
"""

Cheers,
Mario

> -- Jim
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Feb 15, 2016, at 9:51 AM, Mario Torre <neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2016-02-15 12:36 GMT+01:00 Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com>:
>>>> On 15/02/2016 11:03, Mario Torre wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to comment on that too, but Andrew beat me. Anyway this
>>>> answer doesn't really tell anything useful and I would like some more
>>>> context.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that Oracle *may* have the rights to change licensing at
>>>> any time due to the OCA (although my assumption is more that Oracle
>>>> has the right to dual license the code, not arbitrarily change it),
>>>> but any change should be communicated in advance and perhaps
>>>> discussed. I actually expect such change to be discussed by the legal
>>>> body that drives OpenJDK development, not something trivially done
>>>> with a secret bug report.
>>>>
>>>> In this case we are relaxing the licensing restriction may seem a
>>>> generous and innocent change, and we could be fine with that, but
>>>> again I still question the method used, an after the fact commit
>>>> referencing a non accessible bug.
>>> Jim has fixed the JBS issue, it should not have been created as a restricted
>>> issue. To my knowledge, the due diligence has been done.
>>
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> A change in the License of the Project files should not be addressed
>> as a restricted bug report. We are not talking about a mistakenly
>> licensed test case or class file that is rightfully fixed back to the
>> proper license, we are talking about a total change in License.
>>
>> As far as I can see, this is not even about dual licensing the files.
>>
>> I'm not fine to the approval of license changes to the OpenJDK Project
>> without prior written notification from the Governing Board.
>>
>> So as an OpenJDK Member I respectfully ask to bring this change to the
>> attention of the Governing Board.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mario
>> --
>> pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
>> Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF
>>
>> Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens
>> Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
>> OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/
>>
>> Please, support open standards:
>> http://endsoftpatents.org/



-- 
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA  FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

Java Champion - Blog: http://neugens.wordpress.com - Twitter: @neugens
Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/