From carfield at carfield.com.hk Mon Mar 17 11:57:07 2008 From: carfield at carfield.com.hk (Carfield Yim) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:57:07 +0800 Subject: SoyLatte encoding behavior of UTF-8 Message-ID: Not sure if everyone aware of this, by default SoyLatte is use UTF-8 as default encoding, but Mac OS X use MacRoman encoding to encode the file name. Thus there is chance that having problem call java.io.File.getName() . However , MacRoman is very close to UTF-8 so that log file may show correctly encoded string but in fact something going wrong. From Carla.Schroer at Sun.COM Thu Mar 20 15:33:14 2008 From: Carla.Schroer at Sun.COM (Carla Schroer) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:33:14 -0700 Subject: BSD port Message-ID: Dear Greg, Once again I find myself apologizing for the delay in responding. With licensing issues, we have to get legal advice, and it can be difficult to get time with our attorneys because they have a lot on their plates. I have a few more comments and questions below, and I appreciate you providing the information that you have here. > G'day Carla, > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:37:34AM -0800, Carla.Schroer at Sun.COM wrote: > >> Bringing the BSD port into the OpenJDK Community under the GPL >> license is something that Sun would very much like to see happen. >> > > The BSD Java community would also very much like to see this happen, so > it seems like we're in complete agreement so far :). > > >> We believe that the work that's so far been done on the BSD port is >> based on code obtained under the Sun Community Source License >> (SCSL). We need to understand if any of the work was done on code >> obtained under a different license, such as the Java Research >> License (JRL). The SCSL license does provide for code modifications >> to be given back to Sun with sufficient rights and does not require >> a Sun Contributor Agreement (SCA) in order to do so. So we do need >> to make sure that we are getting the code back under SCSL. >> > > Work on the part was done under the SCSL for the 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 > (initially) releases. I mention the previous versions since many > changes > would be forward ported from one version to the next. Once the JRL > update > releases commenced we started doing work based on them though, so those > changes would be under the JRL. > > However, everyone who did work under the JRL has agreed to release there > changes under the GPL as well. I need to check with the FreeBSD > Foundation > though on work done for them under contract, but I believe they would be > happy for those changes to be released under the GPL too. > Thanks for the clarification about who did the work and under what licenses. The JRL has different terms than SCSL. We think the simplest solution for getting all the BSD port code back to us with the rights we need, would be for us to draft a document that could be signed by the folks who worked on this under the JRL, and also FreeBSD Foundation, if they also have rights in the code you wish to donate. > >> In order to minimize the engineering effort for Sun, we need to work >> out a way for you to provide diffs to us that correspond to the >> latest OpenJDK code rather than the SCSL'd code with which you >> started, since the OpenJDK code has already been cleared for >> distribution under the GPL. We would like to work with you on the >> best way to do this so that the code can be published in an OpenJDK >> project as soon as possible. >> > > We can do that. I see OpenJDK 6 has been released very recently, so we > haven't ported to that yet. For OpenJDK 7 we already have a port based > on an earlier build and that is being updated to the current build. > > If OpenJDK 6 is part of this discussion (it might just be OpenJDK 7 > you're > talking about :) then, assuming its source base is similar to the JRL > source base, we should be able to port to it quickly given that we have>> a working port based on the JRL source. > > I think we could do 6 or 7. If you want a 6 port for BSD, then it seems like that's the way to go. We see this process as a one time thing to get the code back into Sun and out again as part of OpenJDK under the GPL. Then the group could work with the 6 open code and the 7 code to get a BSD port for 7. Then we wouldn't have to go through any of this again. We are going to need to work out the best way to get your diffs that minimize our engineering effort to put the code back out. I think Mark Reinhold will be driving that part of the discussion, once we get past the license issues. > >> It would also help us if someone that worked on this port could >> provide the name of the specific entity (or individuals) that signed >> the SCSL agreement where this work took place, as well as any other >> licenses the work was done under. > > I can get together a list of names of the people who have contributed. > However, the SCSL was never "signed" as such. One agreed to the license > by clicking on a button with something like "I Accept" on it when > downloading the SCSL based source releases. So while I can provide a > list > of names, I can't provide any paperwork. > You are correct that SCSL isn't signed if you want the code for internal use or research use. The SCSL is signed if someone wants the "commercial attachment" to distribute products based on the code. FreeBSD did sign a SCSL commercial attachment as well as a TCK license. So, we are going to need to get FreeBSD Foundation involved in giving the code back to us. Carla From lists at intricatesoftware.com Thu Mar 20 20:52:17 2008 From: lists at intricatesoftware.com (Kurt Miller) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:52:17 -0400 Subject: BSD port In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200803202352.17920.lists@intricatesoftware.com> Hi Carla, I would like to introduce myself to you and the rest of the porters-dev list. I have been working on porting the JDKs to the BSD's since 2003. My focus has been on OpenBSD but I also particpate with FreeBSD efforts as well. I have been a quiet supporter and commiter on open source projects including Apache Tomcat (currently inactive), OpenBSD and the BSD Java team. I am very happy that Sun is embracing the idea of accepting our work into the code base and I'm looking forward to that happening. I have been working closely with Greg on this and will continue to help move the process along on our end too. Would it be possible to move forward with the BSD porting project at the same time as the legal parts are worked out? It would be great if the project could be formed and the process of bringing the code in tree discussed in parallel to the legal process. I just recently completed updating OpenBSD's port to OpenJDK 1.7 build 24 (I used some parts of IcedTea's project to fill in the binary plugs). With minimal effort FreeBSD will be up and running too, so we have a starting point for review and discussion already. -Kurt On Thursday 20 March 2008 6:33:14 pm Carla Schroer wrote: > Dear Greg, > > Once again I find myself apologizing for the delay in responding. > With licensing issues, we have to get legal advice, and it can be > difficult to get time with our attorneys because they have a lot on > their plates. I have a few more comments and questions below, and I > appreciate you providing the information that you have here. > > G'day Carla, > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:37:34AM -0800, Carla.Schroer at Sun.COM wrote: > > > >> Bringing the BSD port into the OpenJDK Community under the GPL > >> license is something that Sun would very much like to see happen. > >> > > > > The BSD Java community would also very much like to see this happen, so > > it seems like we're in complete agreement so far :). > > > > > >> We believe that the work that's so far been done on the BSD port is > >> based on code obtained under the Sun Community Source License > >> (SCSL). We need to understand if any of the work was done on code > >> obtained under a different license, such as the Java Research > >> License (JRL). The SCSL license does provide for code modifications > >> to be given back to Sun with sufficient rights and does not require > >> a Sun Contributor Agreement (SCA) in order to do so. So we do need > >> to make sure that we are getting the code back under SCSL. > >> > > > > Work on the part was done under the SCSL for the 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 > > (initially) releases. I mention the previous versions since many > > changes > > would be forward ported from one version to the next. Once the JRL > > update > > releases commenced we started doing work based on them though, so those > > changes would be under the JRL. > > > > However, everyone who did work under the JRL has agreed to release there > > changes under the GPL as well. I need to check with the FreeBSD > > Foundation > > though on work done for them under contract, but I believe they would be > > happy for those changes to be released under the GPL too. > > > > Thanks for the clarification about who did the work and under what > licenses. The JRL has different terms than SCSL. We think the > simplest solution for getting all the BSD port code back to us with > the rights we need, would be for us to draft a document that could be > signed by the folks who worked on this under the JRL, and also FreeBSD > Foundation, if they also have rights in the code you wish to donate. > > > >> In order to minimize the engineering effort for Sun, we need to work > >> out a way for you to provide diffs to us that correspond to the > >> latest OpenJDK code rather than the SCSL'd code with which you > >> started, since the OpenJDK code has already been cleared for > >> distribution under the GPL. We would like to work with you on the > >> best way to do this so that the code can be published in an OpenJDK > >> project as soon as possible. > >> > > > > We can do that. I see OpenJDK 6 has been released very recently, so we > > haven't ported to that yet. For OpenJDK 7 we already have a port based > > on an earlier build and that is being updated to the current build. > > > > If OpenJDK 6 is part of this discussion (it might just be OpenJDK 7 > > you're > > talking about :) then, assuming its source base is similar to the JRL > > source base, we should be able to port to it quickly given that we have>> a working port based on the JRL source. > > > > > I think we could do 6 or 7. If you want a 6 port for BSD, then it > seems like that's the way to go. We see this process as a one time > thing to get the code back into Sun and out again as part of OpenJDK > under the GPL. Then the group could work with the 6 open code and the > 7 code to get a BSD port for 7. Then we wouldn't have to go through > any of this again. We are going to need to work out the best way to > get your diffs that minimize our engineering effort to put the code > back out. I think Mark Reinhold will be driving that part of the discussion, once we get past the license issues. > > > >> It would also help us if someone that worked on this port could > >> provide the name of the specific entity (or individuals) that signed > >> the SCSL agreement where this work took place, as well as any other > >> licenses the work was done under. > > > > I can get together a list of names of the people who have contributed. > > However, the SCSL was never "signed" as such. One agreed to the license > > by clicking on a button with something like "I Accept" on it when > > downloading the SCSL based source releases. So while I can provide a > > list > > of names, I can't provide any paperwork. > > > You are correct that SCSL isn't signed if you want the code for > internal use or research use. The SCSL is signed if someone wants > the "commercial attachment" to distribute products based on the code. > FreeBSD did sign a SCSL commercial attachment as well as a TCK > license. So, we are going to need to get FreeBSD Foundation involved in giving the code back to us. > > Carla > > From dalibor.topic at googlemail.com Tue Mar 25 08:13:42 2008 From: dalibor.topic at googlemail.com (Dalibor Topic) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:13:42 +0100 Subject: MIPS port project In-Reply-To: <985bee770802270622n6fa92b04j10d516a512c5052@mail.gmail.com> References: <47BC93B5.5080908@reservoir.com> <985bee770802270622n6fa92b04j10d516a512c5052@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <985bee770803250813h25d5bd7er3ce61bfbc80a13c0@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Jonathan Springer > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am Jonathan Springer, an engineer at Reservoir Labs, Inc., and the > > lead on Reservoir's project to port OpenJDK to MIPS, which we call > > "UltraViolet". Reservoir would like to see broader visibility for > > this port and hopefully integrate with other efforts that may be going > > on. This note is to suggest the creation of a new OpenJDK project: > > the MIPS Port Project. This is not an official proposal, but I hope > > it becomes one. > > Hi Jonathan, > > thank you very much for this fine proposal. > > I invite the porters group Members to review, discuss and help improve your > proposal. > > If, after discussion, the proposal finds a Member willing to support the > proposal, the Member should then submit the project proposal to the > OpenJDK project's announce and discuss mailing lists per > http://openjdk.java.net/projects/ . > I believe that the lack of discussion indicates post-FOSDEM recovery, and pre-easter holiday planning, rather than anything being wrong with the proposal. So, I'll submit this fine proposal to announce and discuss list for vote in a few minutes. cheers, dalibor topic From dalibor.topic at googlemail.com Tue Mar 25 08:58:28 2008 From: dalibor.topic at googlemail.com (Dalibor Topic) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:58:28 +0100 Subject: BSD port In-Reply-To: <200803202352.17920.lists@intricatesoftware.com> References: <200803202352.17920.lists@intricatesoftware.com> Message-ID: <985bee770803250858t6d3f9ce1h50b800ed40389183@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Kurt Miller wrote: > Hi Carla, > > I am very happy that Sun is embracing the idea of accepting our work > into the code base and I'm looking forward to that happening. I have been > working closely with Greg on this and will continue to help move the process > along on our end too. Would it be possible to move forward with the BSD > porting project at the same time as the legal parts are worked out? I think that depends on how long sorting out the legal process can be expected to take. If it takes much longer than a couple of weeks, then I'd prefer to see the legalese sorted out first, to avoid being stuck with a frustrating situation where we're still working out legalese and singing of documents, and the project is stuck on 'wait'. Do you have an estimate of work that needs to be done on the BSD side (and Carla on Sun's side) and respective timelines? From my reading of the discussions so far: * Sun needs to draft a document for the BSD porters that have worked under the JRL to sign (and the FreeBSD foundation) * The BSD porters need to have a list of contributors that have worked under the JRL * The people and organizations on the list sign off the document * The FreeBSD foundation's commercial license plays into this, as well. Scope of the problem (if it is one) and its resolution is not entirely clear to me yet. Is there anything I've missed? cheers, dalibor topic From springer at reservoir.com Tue Mar 25 09:00:52 2008 From: springer at reservoir.com (Jonathan Springer) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:00:52 -0500 Subject: MIPS port project In-Reply-To: <985bee770803250813h25d5bd7er3ce61bfbc80a13c0@mail.gmail.com> References: <47BC93B5.5080908@reservoir.com> <985bee770802270622n6fa92b04j10d516a512c5052@mail.gmail.com> <985bee770803250813h25d5bd7er3ce61bfbc80a13c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47E921B4.2020708@reservoir.com> Dalibor Topic wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Dalibor Topic > wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Jonathan Springer >> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > I am Jonathan Springer, an engineer at Reservoir Labs, Inc., and the >> > lead on Reservoir's project to port OpenJDK to MIPS, which we call >> > "UltraViolet". Reservoir would like to see broader visibility for >> > this port and hopefully integrate with other efforts that may be going >> > on. This note is to suggest the creation of a new OpenJDK project: >> > the MIPS Port Project. This is not an official proposal, but I hope >> > it becomes one. >> >> Hi Jonathan, >> >> thank you very much for this fine proposal. >> >> I invite the porters group Members to review, discuss and help improve your >> proposal. >> >> If, after discussion, the proposal finds a Member willing to support the >> proposal, the Member should then submit the project proposal to the >> OpenJDK project's announce and discuss mailing lists per >> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/ . >> > > I believe that the lack of discussion indicates post-FOSDEM recovery, > and pre-easter holiday planning, rather than anything being wrong with the > proposal. So, I'll submit this fine proposal to announce and discuss list > for vote in a few minutes. > > cheers, > dalibor topic Thanks very much! -- Jonathan Springer | Reservoir Labs, Inc. | http://www.reservoir.com/ From robilad at kaffe.org Tue Mar 25 09:05:40 2008 From: robilad at kaffe.org (Dalibor Topic) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:05:40 +0100 Subject: Call for vote [Fwd: New Project Proposal: MIPS port of OpenJDK] Message-ID: <47E922D4.7060000@kaffe.org> Dear members of the porters group, it is my pleasure to call you to vote in my role as the group's moderator. The issue being voted on is * Should the porters group sponsor the project to port OpenJDK to the MIPS CPU architecture? Please vote with yes or no. The voting period is two weeks. cheers, dalibor topic -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Dalibor Topic Subject: New Project Proposal: MIPS port of OpenJDK Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:19:41 +0100 Size: 4053 Url: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/porters-dev/attachments/20080325/bbbbbbf1/attachment.eml From dalibor.topic at googlemail.com Tue Mar 25 09:53:14 2008 From: dalibor.topic at googlemail.com (Dalibor Topic) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:53:14 +0100 Subject: Call for vote [Fwd: New Project Proposal: MIPS port of OpenJDK] In-Reply-To: <47E922D4.7060000@kaffe.org> References: <47E922D4.7060000@kaffe.org> Message-ID: <985bee770803250953g5ed1f77ctb5520ef9d62f52fd@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote: > Dear members of the porters group, > > it is my pleasure to call you to vote in my role as the group's > moderator. The issue being voted on is > > * Should the porters group sponsor the project to port OpenJDK > to the MIPS CPU architecture? > > Please vote with yes or no. The voting period is two weeks. Yes. cheers, dalibor topic From glewis at eyesbeyond.com Tue Mar 25 10:00:52 2008 From: glewis at eyesbeyond.com (Greg Lewis) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:00:52 -0700 Subject: BSD port In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080325170052.GB70511@misty.eyesbeyond.com> G'day Carla, On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:33:14PM -0700, Carla Schroer wrote: > Once again I find myself apologizing for the delay in responding. > With licensing issues, we have to get legal advice, and it can be > difficult to get time with our attorneys because they have a lot on > their plates. I have a few more comments and questions below, and I > appreciate you providing the information that you have here. No worries, I'm aware of how long it can take to get answers from legal departments :). > > G'day Carla, > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:37:34AM -0800, Carla.Schroer at Sun.COM wrote: > > > >> Bringing the BSD port into the OpenJDK Community under the GPL > >> license is something that Sun would very much like to see happen. > >> > > > > The BSD Java community would also very much like to see this happen, so > > it seems like we're in complete agreement so far :). > > > > > >> We believe that the work that's so far been done on the BSD port is > >> based on code obtained under the Sun Community Source License > >> (SCSL). We need to understand if any of the work was done on code > >> obtained under a different license, such as the Java Research > >> License (JRL). The SCSL license does provide for code modifications > >> to be given back to Sun with sufficient rights and does not require > >> a Sun Contributor Agreement (SCA) in order to do so. So we do need > >> to make sure that we are getting the code back under SCSL. > >> > > > > Work on the part was done under the SCSL for the 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 > > (initially) releases. I mention the previous versions since many > > changes > > would be forward ported from one version to the next. Once the JRL > > update > > releases commenced we started doing work based on them though, so those > > changes would be under the JRL. > > > > However, everyone who did work under the JRL has agreed to release there > > changes under the GPL as well. I need to check with the FreeBSD > > Foundation > > though on work done for them under contract, but I believe they would be > > happy for those changes to be released under the GPL too. > > > > Thanks for the clarification about who did the work and under what > licenses. The JRL has different terms than SCSL. We think the > simplest solution for getting all the BSD port code back to us with > the rights we need, would be for us to draft a document that could be > signed by the folks who worked on this under the JRL, and also FreeBSD > Foundation, if they also have rights in the code you wish to donate. That would work. I already have email agreements that they are willing to release changes under the GPL, so we should be able to obtain a signed statement from everyone who has done work under the JRL (which is a much smaller list than those that have done SCSL changes). One problem might be people who have contributed very small fixes on a one time basis. Thankfully this is a small number for the JRL and we'll deal with that when the time comes. The FreeBSD Foundation do have a stake in this as they have rights to some of the changes Kurt made under contract with them. I've cc'ed Deb Goodkin of the Foundation (I've already raised the matter with her previously and I believe its under their consideration). > >> In order to minimize the engineering effort for Sun, we need to work > >> out a way for you to provide diffs to us that correspond to the > >> latest OpenJDK code rather than the SCSL'd code with which you > >> started, since the OpenJDK code has already been cleared for > >> distribution under the GPL. We would like to work with you on the > >> best way to do this so that the code can be published in an OpenJDK > >> project as soon as possible. > >> > > > > We can do that. I see OpenJDK 6 has been released very recently, so we > > haven't ported to that yet. For OpenJDK 7 we already have a port based > > on an earlier build and that is being updated to the current build. > > > > If OpenJDK 6 is part of this discussion (it might just be OpenJDK 7 > > you're > > talking about :) then, assuming its source base is similar to the JRL > > source base, we should be able to port to it quickly given that we have>> a working port based on the JRL source. > > > > > I think we could do 6 or 7. If you want a 6 port for BSD, then it > seems like that's the way to go. We see this process as a one time > thing to get the code back into Sun and out again as part of OpenJDK > under the GPL. Then the group could work with the 6 open code and the > 7 code to get a BSD port for 7. Then we wouldn't have to go through > any of this again. We are going to need to work out the best way to > get your diffs that minimize our engineering effort to put the code > back out. I think Mark Reinhold will be driving that part of the discussion, once we get past the license issues. We'll look at whether to target 6 or 7 once the license issues are resolved. But yes, we'd hope this would be a one time process that would get the code back into OpenJDK and that the current porting project would then shut up shop in favour of all future work being based around OpenJDK. We already produce diffs and have endeavoured to add BSD support without affect Solaris/Windows/Linux in any way although its been a while since I compiled our source base on any of these (I have compiled it under Linux once or twice). > >> It would also help us if someone that worked on this port could > >> provide the name of the specific entity (or individuals) that signed > >> the SCSL agreement where this work took place, as well as any other > >> licenses the work was done under. > > > > I can get together a list of names of the people who have contributed. > > However, the SCSL was never "signed" as such. One agreed to the license > > by clicking on a button with something like "I Accept" on it when > > downloading the SCSL based source releases. So while I can provide a > > list > > of names, I can't provide any paperwork. > > > You are correct that SCSL isn't signed if you want the code for > internal use or research use. The SCSL is signed if someone wants > the "commercial attachment" to distribute products based on the code. > FreeBSD did sign a SCSL commercial attachment as well as a TCK > license. So, we are going to need to get FreeBSD Foundation involved in giving the code back to us. Ok. I'll wait to hear from the Foundation on this. -- Greg Lewis Email : glewis at eyesbeyond.com Eyes Beyond Web : http://www.eyesbeyond.com Information Technology FreeBSD : glewis at FreeBSD.org From glewis at eyesbeyond.com Tue Mar 25 10:12:20 2008 From: glewis at eyesbeyond.com (Greg Lewis) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:12:20 -0700 Subject: BSD port In-Reply-To: <985bee770803250858t6d3f9ce1h50b800ed40389183@mail.gmail.com> References: <200803202352.17920.lists@intricatesoftware.com> <985bee770803250858t6d3f9ce1h50b800ed40389183@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080325171220.GD70511@misty.eyesbeyond.com> G'day Dalibor, On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:58:28PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Kurt Miller > wrote: > > Hi Carla, > > > > I am very happy that Sun is embracing the idea of accepting our work > > into the code base and I'm looking forward to that happening. I have been > > working closely with Greg on this and will continue to help move the process > > along on our end too. Would it be possible to move forward with the BSD > > porting project at the same time as the legal parts are worked out? > > I think that depends on how long sorting out the legal process can be > expected to take. > If it takes much longer than a couple of weeks, then I'd prefer to see > the legalese > sorted out first, to avoid being stuck with a frustrating situation > where we're still working > out legalese and singing of documents, and the project is stuck on 'wait'. > > Do you have an estimate of work that needs to be done on the BSD side (and > Carla on Sun's side) and respective timelines? From my reading of the > discussions > so far: > > * Sun needs to draft a document for the BSD porters that have worked > under the JRL to sign (and the FreeBSD foundation) > * The BSD porters need to have a list of contributors that have worked > under the JRL > * The people and organizations on the list sign off the document > * The FreeBSD foundation's commercial license plays into this, as well. > Scope of the problem (if it is one) and its resolution is not > entirely clear to me yet. > > Is there anything I've missed? That pretty much matches my understanding of what we need to do to resolve the licensing issues. Then there is the actual port, but Kurt has been working on that already :). I think this will take longer than a couple of weeks due to the involvement of legal counsel both for Sun (in drafting the document) and probably from the FreeBSD Foundation too (reviewing the document). In each case I don't believe this is a top priority of the respective legal teams and will need some time to work through. I'd be thrilled if Carla thinks otherwise from the Sun perspective, but I believe its realistic for it to take a couple of months rather than weeks to get through. Its also difficult for me to estimate how long it will take to have people sign the documents too. I imagine that will vary from person to person and will depend to some extent on how simple the document is to understand and how long it will take to get any necessary clarifications on what stuff means if its not. -- Greg Lewis Email : glewis at eyesbeyond.com Eyes Beyond Web : http://www.eyesbeyond.com Information Technology FreeBSD : glewis at FreeBSD.org From mr at sun.com Tue Mar 25 10:41:38 2008 From: mr at sun.com (Mark Reinhold) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:41:38 -0700 Subject: Call for vote [Fwd: New Project Proposal: MIPS port of OpenJDK] In-Reply-To: robilad@kaffe.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:05:40 BST; <47E922D4.7060000@kaffe.org> Message-ID: <20080325174138.5DBAD5B656@eggemoggin.niobe.net> Vote: yes - Mark (who has fond memories of hacking MIPS assembler code, way back when) From David.Herron at Sun.COM Tue Mar 25 11:24:23 2008 From: David.Herron at Sun.COM (David Herron) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:24:23 -0700 Subject: Call for vote [Fwd: New Project Proposal: MIPS port of OpenJDK] In-Reply-To: <985bee770803250953g5ed1f77ctb5520ef9d62f52fd@mail.gmail.com> References: <47E922D4.7060000@kaffe.org> <985bee770803250953g5ed1f77ctb5520ef9d62f52fd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47E94357.2090509@sun.com> Dalibor Topic wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote: > >> Dear members of the porters group, >> >> it is my pleasure to call you to vote in my role as the group's >> moderator. The issue being voted on is >> >> * Should the porters group sponsor the project to port OpenJDK >> to the MIPS CPU architecture? >> >> Please vote with yes or no. The voting period is two weeks. >> > > Yes. > > cheers, > dalibor topic > Yes - David Herron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/porters-dev/attachments/20080325/51387090/attachment.html From kurt at intricatesoftware.com Tue Mar 25 12:00:54 2008 From: kurt at intricatesoftware.com (Kurt Miller) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:00:54 -0400 Subject: BSD port In-Reply-To: <20080325171220.GD70511@misty.eyesbeyond.com> References: <985bee770803250858t6d3f9ce1h50b800ed40389183@mail.gmail.com> <20080325171220.GD70511@misty.eyesbeyond.com> Message-ID: <200803251500.54783.kurt@intricatesoftware.com> On Tuesday 25 March 2008 1:12:20 pm Greg Lewis wrote: > G'day Dalibor, > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:58:28PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Kurt Miller > > wrote: > > > Hi Carla, > > > > > > I am very happy that Sun is embracing the idea of accepting our work > > > into the code base and I'm looking forward to that happening. I have been > > > working closely with Greg on this and will continue to help move the process > > > along on our end too. Would it be possible to move forward with the BSD > > > porting project at the same time as the legal parts are worked out? > > > > I think that depends on how long sorting out the legal process can be > > expected to take. > > If it takes much longer than a couple of weeks, then I'd prefer to see > > the legalese > > sorted out first, to avoid being stuck with a frustrating situation > > where we're still working > > out legalese and singing of documents, and the project is stuck on 'wait'. > > > > Do you have an estimate of work that needs to be done on the BSD side (and > > Carla on Sun's side) and respective timelines? From my reading of the > > discussions > > so far: > > > > * Sun needs to draft a document for the BSD porters that have worked > > under the JRL to sign (and the FreeBSD foundation) > > * The BSD porters need to have a list of contributors that have worked > > under the JRL > > * The people and organizations on the list sign off the document > > * The FreeBSD foundation's commercial license plays into this, as well. > > Scope of the problem (if it is one) and its resolution is not > > entirely clear to me yet. > > > > Is there anything I've missed? > > That pretty much matches my understanding of what we need to do to resolve > the licensing issues. Then there is the actual port, but Kurt has been > working on that already :). > > I think this will take longer than a couple of weeks due to the involvement > of legal counsel both for Sun (in drafting the document) and probably from > the FreeBSD Foundation too (reviewing the document). In each case I don't > believe this is a top priority of the respective legal teams and will need > some time to work through. I'd be thrilled if Carla thinks otherwise from > the Sun perspective, but I believe its realistic for it to take a couple of > months rather than weeks to get through. > > Its also difficult for me to estimate how long it will take to have people > sign the documents too. I imagine that will vary from person to person > and will depend to some extent on how simple the document is to understand > and how long it will take to get any necessary clarifications on what stuff > means if its not. > The vast majority of the JRL based work was performed by six individuals: Kurt Miller Greg Lewis Jung-uk Kim Christos Zoulas Arne H. Juul Landon Fuller There were three one-time bug fix submissions from other individuals and 13 changes that the FreeBSD Foundation has rights too. Question for Carla: Is it indeed necessary to come up with a new legal document for the JRL work? Can't we just use the SCA for all the individual contributers? Provided the six of us sign the SCA, it leaves a very small number of changes to deal with. I guess I'm looking for a way to move forward with the project creation and begin the process of reviewing the code and adjusting it to minimize the engineering effort. If it will take months for Sun and the FreeBSD Foundation to work out an acceptable agreement for those 13 changes, we can initially leave the changes out so other important work can continue in parallel. -Kurt From Carla.Schroer at Sun.COM Tue Mar 25 12:26:28 2008 From: Carla.Schroer at Sun.COM (Carla Schroer) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:26:28 -0700 Subject: BSD port In-Reply-To: <200803251500.54783.kurt@intricatesoftware.com> References: <985bee770803250858t6d3f9ce1h50b800ed40389183@mail.gmail.com> <20080325171220.GD70511@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <200803251500.54783.kurt@intricatesoftware.com> Message-ID: Folks, I met with on of our attorneys yesterday on the porting questions, and have forwarded this latest question to him. Thanks for the additional info on who was involved and did most of the work. I will try to get you an answer this week. I will be on vacation from Mar 31 - Apr 11. I'll make sure there is someone following up while I'm away. I'll get as far as I can before I go. Thanks for the good questions, patience, and detailed information. We all want the same thing here, and we will get through this. Carla ----- Original Message ----- From: Kurt Miller Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 12:01 pm Subject: Re: BSD port To: porters-dev at openjdk.java.net Cc: Greg Lewis , Dalibor Topic , Carla Schroer > On Tuesday 25 March 2008 1:12:20 pm Greg Lewis wrote: > > G'day Dalibor, > > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:58:28PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Kurt Miller > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Carla, > > > > > > > > I am very happy that Sun is embracing the idea of accepting our > work > > > > into the code base and I'm looking forward to that happening. I > have been > > > > working closely with Greg on this and will continue to help > move the process > > > > along on our end too. Would it be possible to move forward > with the BSD > > > > porting project at the same time as the legal parts are worked > out? > > > > > > I think that depends on how long sorting out the legal process can > be > > > expected to take. > > > If it takes much longer than a couple of weeks, then I'd prefer to > see > > > the legalese > > > sorted out first, to avoid being stuck with a frustrating situation > > > where we're still working > > > out legalese and singing of documents, and the project is stuck on > 'wait'. > > > > > > Do you have an estimate of work that needs to be done on the BSD > side (and > > > Carla on Sun's side) and respective timelines? From my reading of > the > > > discussions > > > so far: > > > > > > * Sun needs to draft a document for the BSD porters that have worked > > > under the JRL to sign (and the FreeBSD foundation) > > > * The BSD porters need to have a list of contributors that have worked > > > under the JRL > > > * The people and organizations on the list sign off the document > > > * The FreeBSD foundation's commercial license plays into this, as > well. > > > Scope of the problem (if it is one) and its resolution is not > > > entirely clear to me yet. > > > > > > Is there anything I've missed? > > > > That pretty much matches my understanding of what we need to do to resolve > > the licensing issues. Then there is the actual port, but Kurt has been > > working on that already :). > > > > I think this will take longer than a couple of weeks due to the involvement > > of legal counsel both for Sun (in drafting the document) and > probably from > > the FreeBSD Foundation too (reviewing the document). In each case I > don't > > believe this is a top priority of the respective legal teams and > will need > > some time to work through. I'd be thrilled if Carla thinks > otherwise from > > the Sun perspective, but I believe its realistic for it to take a > couple of > > months rather than weeks to get through. > > > > Its also difficult for me to estimate how long it will take to have > people > > sign the documents too. I imagine that will vary from person to person > > and will depend to some extent on how simple the document is to understand > > and how long it will take to get any necessary clarifications on > what stuff > > means if its not. > > > > The vast majority of the JRL based work was performed by six individuals: > > Kurt Miller > Greg Lewis > Jung-uk Kim > Christos Zoulas > Arne H. Juul > Landon Fuller > > There were three one-time bug fix submissions from other individuals and > 13 changes that the FreeBSD Foundation has rights too. > > Question for Carla: > > Is it indeed necessary to come up with a new legal document for the JRL > work? Can't we just use the SCA for all the individual contributers? Provided > the six of us sign the SCA, it leaves a very small number of changes > to deal with. > > I guess I'm looking for a way to move forward with the project > creation and > begin the process of reviewing the code and adjusting it to minimize the > engineering effort. If it will take months for Sun and the FreeBSD Foundation > to work out an acceptable agreement for those 13 changes, we can initially > leave the changes out so other important work can continue in parallel. > > -Kurt From tmarble at info9.net Thu Mar 27 20:44:14 2008 From: tmarble at info9.net (Tom Marble) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:44:14 -0500 Subject: Call for vote Message-ID: <47EC698E.1060107@info9.net> Dalibor (et al): > * Should the porters group sponsor the project to port OpenJDK > to the MIPS CPU architecture? Yes. It is my pleasure to advocate yet another target architecture for OpenJDK as this serves the overall goal of ubiquity. Respectfully, --Tom From Carla.Schroer at Sun.COM Fri Mar 28 16:48:09 2008 From: Carla.Schroer at Sun.COM (Carla Schroer) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:48:09 -0700 Subject: BSD port In-Reply-To: <200803251500.54783.kurt@intricatesoftware.com> References: <985bee770803250858t6d3f9ce1h50b800ed40389183@mail.gmail.com> <20080325171220.GD70511@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <200803251500.54783.kurt@intricatesoftware.com> Message-ID: Dear Kurt, Thanks for the additional information and a specific request that we can work with. I have spoken to one of our attorneys, and I want to give you a little background and let you know how we propose resolving this for the 6 folks listed here. There are a couple of issues in getting this work done. The most obvious one is Sun getting code back from the folks who did the porting work, with the rights we need to put it out in OpenJDK as well as have it in our commercial source base. For that purpose alone, what you propose, i.e. the folks who did the work under the JRL, signing an SCA and giving the code back to Sun, would work. However, there is an additional wrinkle which is that in order to minimize the engineering work we would have to do to put the code out under OpenJDK, we will need to get the changes back as diffs against either the 6 Open or OpenJDK 7 code base. This is because we have put an enormous engineering effort into scrubbing our code base for the OpenJDK releases, including lots of work with third party licenses, not making available proprietary code that we didn't have the rights to open source, and many other tasks. The only way that we will be able to get the ported code out in OpenJDK is if we get the changes against code that has already been through this process. Neither the SCSL, nor the JRL gives developers the right to apply their changes (i.e. derivative works of our sources) to an open source code base. So, we propose to create a letter which would allow you to do that, one time only, for the purpose of giving the code back to us for use in OpenJDK. We believe that we can create such a letter in the next 2-3 weeks, and that we can keep it pretty simple. We will draft it to be specific to this project and these people, and you will not need to sign it. (but you will need to sign the SCA to cover giving the diffs back) We will consider doing this for other projects on a case by case basis. Would this approach work for you and the 5 others on this list? Please let me know(really Mark Reinhold, as I will be on vacation from Mar 31 - Apr 13) if you have any questions or concerns. Carla ----- Original Message ----- From: Kurt Miller Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 12:01 pm Subject: Re: BSD port To: porters-dev at openjdk.java.net Cc: Greg Lewis , Dalibor Topic , Carla Schroer > On Tuesday 25 March 2008 1:12:20 pm Greg Lewis wrote: > > G'day Dalibor, > > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:58:28PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Kurt Miller > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Carla, > > > > > > > > I am very happy that Sun is embracing the idea of accepting > our work > > > > into the code base and I'm looking forward to that happening. > I have been > > > > working closely with Greg on this and will continue to help > move the process > > > > along on our end too. Would it be possible to move forward > with the BSD > > > > porting project at the same time as the legal parts are worked > out? > > > > > > I think that depends on how long sorting out the legal process > can be > > > expected to take. > > > If it takes much longer than a couple of weeks, then I'd prefer > to see > > > the legalese > > > sorted out first, to avoid being stuck with a frustrating situation > > > where we're still working > > > out legalese and singing of documents, and the project is stuck > on 'wait'. > > > > > > Do you have an estimate of work that needs to be done on the BSD > side (and > > > Carla on Sun's side) and respective timelines? From my reading of > the > > > discussions > > > so far: > > > > > > * Sun needs to draft a document for the BSD porters that have worked > > > under the JRL to sign (and the FreeBSD foundation) > > > * The BSD porters need to have a list of contributors that have worked > > > under the JRL > > > * The people and organizations on the list sign off the document > > > * The FreeBSD foundation's commercial license plays into this, as > well. > > > Scope of the problem (if it is one) and its resolution is not > > > entirely clear to me yet. > > > > > > Is there anything I've missed? > > > > That pretty much matches my understanding of what we need to do to > resolve > > the licensing issues. Then there is the actual port, but Kurt has > been > > working on that already :). > > > > I think this will take longer than a couple of weeks due to the involvement > > of legal counsel both for Sun (in drafting the document) and > probably from > > the FreeBSD Foundation too (reviewing the document). In each case > I don't > > believe this is a top priority of the respective legal teams and > will need > > some time to work through. I'd be thrilled if Carla thinks > otherwise from > > the Sun perspective, but I believe its realistic for it to take a > couple of > > months rather than weeks to get through. > > > > Its also difficult for me to estimate how long it will take to have > people > > sign the documents too. I imagine that will vary from person to person > > and will depend to some extent on how simple the document is to understand > > and how long it will take to get any necessary clarifications on > what stuff > > means if its not. > > > > The vast majority of the JRL based work was performed by six individuals: > > Kurt Miller > Greg Lewis > Jung-uk Kim > Christos Zoulas > Arne H. Juul > Landon Fuller > > There were three one-time bug fix submissions from other individuals > and > 13 changes that the FreeBSD Foundation has rights too. > > Question for Carla: > > Is it indeed necessary to come up with a new legal document for the JRL > work? Can't we just use the SCA for all the individual contributers? > Provided > the six of us sign the SCA, it leaves a very small number of changes > to deal with. > > I guess I'm looking for a way to move forward with the project > creation and > begin the process of reviewing the code and adjusting it to minimize > the > engineering effort. If it will take months for Sun and the FreeBSD Foundation > to work out an acceptable agreement for those 13 changes, we can initially > leave the changes out so other important work can continue in parallel. > > -Kurt > From kurt at intricatesoftware.com Mon Mar 31 06:13:13 2008 From: kurt at intricatesoftware.com (Kurt Miller) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:13:13 -0400 Subject: BSD port In-Reply-To: References: <200803251500.54783.kurt@intricatesoftware.com> Message-ID: <200803310913.13978.kurt@intricatesoftware.com> Hi Carla, Thank you for the quick response to my questions and moving the BSD port questions along within Sun. The solution you have proposed sounds great. Three of us are already signed up with the SCA and I have written the remaining three asking them to sign on as well. There will be no problem providing BSD support as diffs against OpenJDK source code. I have a first cut of the BSD code ported over to OpenJDK 7 build 24 now. Although it needs some refinement and testing on FreeBSD, NetBSD and OS X still. Enjoy your vacation. Hopefully by the time you return the remaining members of the group will have signed on SCA. -Kurt On Friday 28 March 2008 7:48:09 pm Carla Schroer wrote: > Dear Kurt, > > Thanks for the additional information and a specific request that we can > work with. I have spoken to one of our attorneys, and I want to give you > a little background and let you know how we propose resolving this for > the 6 folks listed here. > > There are a couple of issues in getting this work done. The most obvious > one is Sun getting code back from the folks who did the porting work, > with the rights we need to put it out in OpenJDK as well as have it in > our commercial source base. For that purpose alone, what you propose, > i.e. the folks who did the work under the JRL, signing an SCA and giving > the code back to Sun, would work. > > However, there is an additional wrinkle which is that in order to > minimize the engineering work we would have to do to put the code out > under OpenJDK, we will need to get the changes back as diffs against > either the 6 Open or OpenJDK 7 code base. This is because we have put > an enormous engineering effort into scrubbing our code base for the > OpenJDK releases, including lots of work with third party licenses, not > making available proprietary code that we didn't have the rights to open > source, and many other tasks. The only way that we will be able to get > the ported code out in OpenJDK is if we get the changes against code > that has already been through this process. Neither the SCSL, nor the > JRL gives developers the right to apply their changes (i.e. derivative > works of our sources) to an open source code base. So, we propose to > create a letter which would allow you to do that, one time only, for > the purpose of giving the code back to us for use in OpenJDK. We > believe that we can create such a letter in the next 2-3 weeks, and > that we can keep it pretty simple. We will draft it to be specific to this > project and these people, and you will not need to sign it. (but you will > need to sign the SCA to cover giving the diffs back) We will consider > doing this for other projects on a case by case basis. > > Would this approach work for you and the 5 others on this list? Please > let me know(really Mark Reinhold, as I will be on vacation from Mar > 31 - Apr 13) if you have any questions or concerns. > > Carla > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kurt Miller > Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 12:01 pm > Subject: Re: BSD port > To: porters-dev at openjdk.java.net > Cc: Greg Lewis , Dalibor Topic , Carla Schroer > > > > On Tuesday 25 March 2008 1:12:20 pm Greg Lewis wrote: > > > G'day Dalibor, > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:58:28PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Kurt Miller > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Carla, > > > > > > > > > > I am very happy that Sun is embracing the idea of accepting > > our work > > > > > into the code base and I'm looking forward to that happening. > > I have been > > > > > working closely with Greg on this and will continue to help > > move the process > > > > > along on our end too. Would it be possible to move forward > > with the BSD > > > > > porting project at the same time as the legal parts are worked > > out? > > > > > > > > I think that depends on how long sorting out the legal process > > can be > > > > expected to take. > > > > If it takes much longer than a couple of weeks, then I'd prefer > > to see > > > > the legalese > > > > sorted out first, to avoid being stuck with a frustrating situation > > > > where we're still working > > > > out legalese and singing of documents, and the project is stuck > > on 'wait'. > > > > > > > > Do you have an estimate of work that needs to be done on the BSD > > side (and > > > > Carla on Sun's side) and respective timelines? From my reading of > > the > > > > discussions > > > > so far: > > > > > > > > * Sun needs to draft a document for the BSD porters that have worked > > > > under the JRL to sign (and the FreeBSD foundation) > > > > * The BSD porters need to have a list of contributors that have worked > > > > under the JRL > > > > * The people and organizations on the list sign off the document > > > > * The FreeBSD foundation's commercial license plays into this, as > > well. > > > > Scope of the problem (if it is one) and its resolution is not > > > > entirely clear to me yet. > > > > > > > > Is there anything I've missed? > > > > > > That pretty much matches my understanding of what we need to do to > > resolve > > > the licensing issues. Then there is the actual port, but Kurt has > > been > > > working on that already :). > > > > > > I think this will take longer than a couple of weeks due to the involvement > > > of legal counsel both for Sun (in drafting the document) and > > probably from > > > the FreeBSD Foundation too (reviewing the document). In each case > > I don't > > > believe this is a top priority of the respective legal teams and > > will need > > > some time to work through. I'd be thrilled if Carla thinks > > otherwise from > > > the Sun perspective, but I believe its realistic for it to take a > > couple of > > > months rather than weeks to get through. > > > > > > Its also difficult for me to estimate how long it will take to have > > people > > > sign the documents too. I imagine that will vary from person to person > > > and will depend to some extent on how simple the document is to understand > > > and how long it will take to get any necessary clarifications on > > what stuff > > > means if its not. > > > > > > > The vast majority of the JRL based work was performed by six individuals: > > > > Kurt Miller > > Greg Lewis > > Jung-uk Kim > > Christos Zoulas > > Arne H. Juul > > Landon Fuller > > > > There were three one-time bug fix submissions from other individuals > > and > > 13 changes that the FreeBSD Foundation has rights too. > > > > Question for Carla: > > > > Is it indeed necessary to come up with a new legal document for the JRL > > work? Can't we just use the SCA for all the individual contributers? > > Provided > > the six of us sign the SCA, it leaves a very small number of changes > > to deal with. > > > > I guess I'm looking for a way to move forward with the project > > creation and > > begin the process of reviewing the code and adjusting it to minimize > > the > > engineering effort. If it will take months for Sun and the FreeBSD Foundation > > to work out an acceptable agreement for those 13 changes, we can initially > > leave the changes out so other important work can continue in parallel. > > > > -Kurt > > >