Re: OpenJDK draft trademark license
Mark Reinhold <email@example.com> wrote:
> > From: Walter Landry <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > I do not think that the section on portability fixes is really needed,
> > since, even with portability fixes, I would expect that the vast
> > mojority of the code would be the same.
> Actually, some portability fixes can be quite significant. Porting the
> HotSpot virtual machine to a brand-new architecture, e.g., can easily
> create a few hundred thousand lines of new code in a hundred or so new
> files. Such a change would not pass the "vast majority" test, hence the
> need for the current sub-clause (a).
Ok. I defer to your judgement in this matter.
> > This is not a critical change, since you are going to put a
> > clarification in the FAQ. But it would be better to clear it up in
> > the license.
> If you're content with security fixes being discussed in the FAQ then
> I'd like to leave the text of the notice as-is.
I am not the person who decides. The FTP masters are the ones who
decide. However, from my experience of watching them over the past
seven years, I think that would be sufficient.