General discussion about the OpenJDK project ()

Dr Andrew John Hughes | 3 May 2011 10:02

Picon

Re: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21

On 30 April 2011 11:59, Doug Lea <dl@...> wrote:
> On 04/28/11 15:06, Ludwig, Mark wrote:
>>
>> It might help the contributors be more patient if they understood why it
>> helps the OpenJDK community to wait for this.  Neither the minutes from
>> the
>> board meeting nor the ensuing discussion in the last twelve hours really
>> explain why waiting indefinitely is better than letting OpenJDK 8 get
>> started
>> now.
>>
>
> The GB cannot make decisions based on the bylaws if we do not have
> bylaws. Until then, it appears that the original interim rules
> and conventions still apply. This is how some of
> the prospective JDK8 projects (like lambda) have already been set up.
> Oracle could insist on doing the same for jdk8 itself, despite the GB.
> However, if jdk8 escapes the upcoming new bylaws, then primary jdk
> development may continue to operate under the old interim conventions
> for years.
>
> -Doug
>

Can you explain what is wrong with the current conventions?  I can
think of many things I believe could be improved with the current
OpenJDK project, but the conventions for creating new projects doesn't
factor high on the list.  I'm not saying the current rules are
perfect, but they've worked for the last four years and allowed a
number of projects to be started by non-Oracle contributors (the

(Continue reading)

Mike Milinkovich | 3 May 2011 14:28

RE: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21


Andrew,

This unhappy situation will hopefully last for at most a week or two. If it appears that it will be putting
open development at a serious disadvantage, we will certainly review the decision.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces@... [mailto:discuss-
> bounces@...] On Behalf Of Dr Andrew John Hughes
> Sent: May-03-11 4:02 AM
> To: discuss@...
> Subject: Re: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
> 
> On 30 April 2011 11:59, Doug Lea <dl@...> wrote:
> > On 04/28/11 15:06, Ludwig, Mark wrote:
> >>
> >> It might help the contributors be more patient if they understood why it
> >> helps the OpenJDK community to wait for this.  Neither the minutes from
> >> the
> >> board meeting nor the ensuing discussion in the last twelve hours really
> >> explain why waiting indefinitely is better than letting OpenJDK 8 get
> >> started
> >> now.
> >>
> >
> > The GB cannot make decisions based on the bylaws if we do not have
> > bylaws. Until then, it appears that the original interim rules
> > and conventions still apply. This is how some of
> > the prospective JDK8 projects (like lambda) have already been set up.
> > Oracle could insist on doing the same for jdk8 itself, despite the GB.

(Continue reading)

hwadechandler | 5 May 2011 23:16

Picon

Re: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21

----- Original Message ----

> From: Mario Torre <neugens@...>
> To: Simon Phipps <simon@...>
> Cc: discuss@...; gb-discuss@...
> Sent: Fri, April 29, 2011 1:26:36 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21
> 
> > Given we are discussing  governance I suggest we drop discuss <at>  instead. My 
>comments only appear there,  for example.
> > 
> > S.
> 
> No please, this is an important topic,  valid for discuss, not just
> specific to gb (besides, I don't want to  subscribe to the new mailing
> list in the middle of a thread  :).

I think a whole new list for a governance board is silly anyways. Too  many 
mailing list are just an annoyance. The governance board of  NetBeans uses the 
nbdiscuss list which is the NetBeans Discuss list and  that works out well. No 
separate list needed. Then everything discussing  the project is done in one 
simple place.

Nothing the governance board is going to discuss is not going to be about 
discussing the project. Thus, I don't understand the need for such a list. 
Again, just annoying.

Wade

 ==================

(Continue reading)

Fernando Cassia | 6 May 2011 01:55

Picon

Re: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes <
gnu_andrew@...> wrote:

> I completely agree.  There are way too many lists and the only benefit
> of this list is it allows Oracle to hide material they don't want
> everyone to see.
> --
> Andrew 
>

Dear Andrew,

Does your paranoia reflect that of your employer, RedHat?, or are you
writing just on a personal basis?

I ask because if your paranoia reflects that of RedHat management, I´d
seriously reconsider using Fedora...

And you´ve already admitted here that you only work on OpenJDK because your
employer told you so. So I also don´t know if it serves RedHat´s interests
to have someone working on OpenJDK almost against his will...

FC

Mike Milinkovich | 6 May 2011 18:37

RE: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21


> > - Get rid of the SCA. Commit to using the GPL for everything.
> >   People should be able to be members of the community without
> >   having to assign all their rights on non-reciprocal terms to
> >   Oracle.
> 
> I don't think this can happen, but the OCA (was SCA) can
> at least be improved to address most concerns that appear to
> have caused some potential contributors to hesitate doing
> so. My guess is that some aspects of non-reciprocity will likely
> remain though.

To further set (perhaps lower would be more accurate) expectations on this
front, it is my understanding that any revisions to the OCA will happen
_after_ the revised Bylaws come out. If I'm mistaken about that, perhaps
Mark Reinhold or Adam Messinger can correct me.

I would also point out that there is no chance that the OCA is going to go
away. Sun, and now Oracle, have business motivations and existing
contractual obligations that will always require them to aggregate clear
title to the intellectual property in OpenJDK. So anyone harbouring hopes
that this would change needs to come to terms with this reality.

/mike

David Herron | 6 May 2011 18:43

How do I resign?

Hi all, I have a question which the OpenJDK website wasn't able to give me
an answer.  I've come to a point where I realize I'm not ever going to get
around to contributing anything to the OpenJDK, I realize that I have a
voting role in one or two Group, and that because I'm not contributing to
the OpenJDK that I should not have those Group Member roles.

I'd started to send this a week ago - but the kerfluffle over interim
governance board stuff made me stop and wait a week.  I'm trying to keep
this to the fact that I'm not involved in the project and shouldn't have any
actual roles in the project, but I that I do have a voting role in at least
one Group.  However one can draw a parallel between that and a couple of the
governance board members, for whatever that's worth.

Specifically, I am Member of two Groups:  Porting, Quality

The Quality Group was a good idea we had while I was still a Sun employee
but I was never allowed to take it beyond what is on those pages on the
OpenJDK website.  That's a personal disappointment for me because I believe
the OpenJDK (like Netbeans, Drupal, and other high profile open source
projects) deserves to have a publicly operated quality team.

It's the Porting group where I have some concern, because it has actual
activity and I have to pay enough attention to cast votes occasionally.
 It's possible that I might miss a call for votes, not cast my vote, and
delay something or other within the OpenJDK project.  Weeell, okay, Dalibor
is a smart guy who probably won't miss a lack of vote and he does know where
to find me if need be.   In any case it would be better for my Group Member
seat be held by someone who is involved with the OpenJDK project, is paying
attention, has skin in the game, etc.

(Continue reading)

Rémi Forax | 6 May 2011 18:57

Picon

Re: How do I resign?

On 05/06/2011 06:43 PM, David Herron wrote:
> Hi all, I have a question which the OpenJDK website wasn't able to give me
> an answer.  I've come to a point where I realize I'm not ever going to get
> around to contributing anything to the OpenJDK, I realize that I have a
> voting role in one or two Group, and that because I'm not contributing to
> the OpenJDK that I should not have those Group Member roles.
>
> I'd started to send this a week ago - but the kerfluffle over interim
> governance board stuff made me stop and wait a week.  I'm trying to keep
> this to the fact that I'm not involved in the project and shouldn't have any
> actual roles in the project, but I that I do have a voting role in at least
> one Group.  However one can draw a parallel between that and a couple of the
> governance board members, for whatever that's worth.
>
> Specifically, I am Member of two Groups:  Porting, Quality
>
> The Quality Group was a good idea we had while I was still a Sun employee
> but I was never allowed to take it beyond what is on those pages on the
> OpenJDK website.  That's a personal disappointment for me because I believe
> the OpenJDK (like Netbeans, Drupal, and other high profile open source
> projects) deserves to have a publicly operated quality team.
>
> It's the Porting group where I have some concern, because it has actual
> activity and I have to pay enough attention to cast votes occasionally.
>   It's possible that I might miss a call for votes, not cast my vote, and
> delay something or other within the OpenJDK project.  Weeell, okay, Dalibor
> is a smart guy who probably won't miss a lack of vote and he does know where
> to find me if need be.   In any case it would be better for my Group Member
> seat be held by someone who is involved with the OpenJDK project, is paying
> attention, has skin in the game, etc.

(Continue reading)

David Herron | 6 May 2011 18:59

Re: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Mike Milinkovich <
mike.milinkovich@...> wrote:

>
> > > - Get rid of the SCA. Commit to using the GPL for everything.
> > >   People should be able to be members of the community without
> > >   having to assign all their rights on non-reciprocal terms to
> > >   Oracle.
> >
> > I don't think this can happen, but the OCA (was SCA) can
> > at least be improved to address most concerns that appear to
> > have caused some potential contributors to hesitate doing
> > so. My guess is that some aspects of non-reciprocity will likely
> > remain though.
>
> To further set (perhaps lower would be more accurate) expectations on this
> front, it is my understanding that any revisions to the OCA will happen
> _after_ the revised Bylaws come out. If I'm mistaken about that, perhaps
> Mark Reinhold or Adam Messinger can correct me.
>
> I would also point out that there is no chance that the OCA is going to go
> away. Sun, and now Oracle, have business motivations and existing
> contractual obligations that will always require them to aggregate clear
> title to the intellectual property in OpenJDK. So anyone harbouring hopes
> that this would change needs to come to terms with this reality.
>
> /mike
>

As someone who helped review the original SCA before it was published - I'd

(Continue reading)

Mario Torre | 6 May 2011 19:28

Picon

Re: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21

Il giorno ven, 06/05/2011 alle 09.59 -0700, David Herron ha scritto:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Mike Milinkovich <
> mike.milinkovich@...> wrote:

> Sitting with it at the moment there's an additional consideration in my
> mind.  Just because someone donates code to a project should they become
> part owner of the project?  There are plusses and minuses.  But that's a
> rather moot point because Sun and now Oracle always was clear on what they
> needed and why.
> 
> + David Herron
> http://davidherron.com

Hi David, great to hear you back :)

I think there is an important issue here.

First of all, let's consider an extreme case: I had to sign the SCA to
donate Caciocavallo to Sun (question: would I donate it again to
Oracle?).

Cacio is part of the porting group, but now I find that I cannot
re-license it or that if I improperly use it with OpenJDK I can get
arrested ;)

This of course will never happen in reality, but why I cannot have a
grant back on code that I wrote completely by myself that Sun even
didn't contribute in the first place?

Second: the fact is that there is mutual ownership doesn't mean that I

(Continue reading)

Dr Andrew John Hughes | 8 May 2011 18:32

Picon

Re: OpenJDK Governing Board Minutes: 20011/4/21

On 6 May 2011 17:59, David Herron <david@...> wrote:
...
> As someone who helped review the original SCA before it was published - I'd
> like to say that from my perspective I don't have any issue with it.  If I'm
> donating some code to a project my goal is to improve the project.
>

Sure, people have no problem with improving the project, that being OpenJDK.
The SCA/OCA have nothing to do with this.  As previously stated, they allow
Oracle to produce separate proprietary binaries that includes the work
of others.

I'm happy enough to release my code under a Free license - but I can
do that anywhere.
Making it part of OpenJDK under the OCA also means contributing to Oracle's
proprietary products and this is why I personally would not make any
significant contribution
of work (as in complete new features like Mario mentions, rather than
fixes) to OpenJDK.
--

-- 
Andrew 

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://icedtea.classpath.org

PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D  0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37

(Continue reading)

Group

gmane.comp.java.openjdk.general.

Advertisement

Project Web Page

General discussion about the OpenJDK project ()

Search Archive

Page

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 13

Articles in period: 123

May 2011

Language

Change language

Options

Current view: Threads only / Showing only 20 lines / Not hiding cited text.
Change to All messages, whole messages, or hide cited text.

Post a message
NNTP Newsgroup
Classic Gmane web interface
XML

XML

RSS Feed
List Information

About Gmane

Recent entries

OpenJDK and Android Studio (15 Jun 2013)
Dynamic (i.e responding to methodNotFound) classes in Java (14 Jun 2013)
Modularity 2014 - Call for Papers (30 May 2013)
[Deadline Extension] PPPJ'13 (28 May 2013)
GNU Classpath Summer of Code 2013 (28 May 2013)
[Ann] Cobra 3.5 - Windows GUI test automation tool (23 May 2013)
PPPJ'13 - Deadline Approaching (22 May 2013)
How is JVM.cpp used (22 May 2013)
Object Lifetime Specification (20 May 2013)
User Controlled Memory Management and Resource Management (19 May 2013)
Announce : LDTP 3.5.0 - Linux GUI test automation tool (12 May 2013)
bugs.sun.com (2 May 2013)
Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science (30 Apr 2013)
SolarNetwork: renewable energy management framework (16 Apr 2013)
Where to find the source of the closed-source browser plugin? (13 Apr 2013)
Inconsistency between Projects page and Bylaws (8 Apr 2013)
JEP 182: Policy for Retiring javac -source and -target Options (5 Apr 2013)
GNU Classpath ideas for GSoC 2013 (28 Mar 2013)
'hg push' hangs if used trough a ssh-tunnel (27 Mar 2013)
JDK8 will support 64-bit (unsigned int)? (14 Mar 2013)
[IANA #656816] Application for a Port Number and/or Service Name "jdp- (13 Mar 2013)

Archives

10	June 2013
29	May 2013
10	April 2013
46	March 2013
9	February 2013
29	January 2013
6	December 2012
58	November 2012
34	October 2012
51	September 2012
62	August 2012
22	July 2012
16	June 2012
45	May 2012
15	April 2012
40	March 2012
143	February 2012
111	January 2012
66	December 2011
65	November 2011
88	October 2011
6	September 2011
3	August 2011
78	July 2011
62	June 2011
123	May 2011
10	April 2011
28	March 2011
31	February 2011
13	January 2011
33	December 2010
55	November 2010
8	October 2010
4	September 2010
9	August 2010
5	July 2010
10	June 2010
7	May 2010
15	April 2010
11	March 2010
22	February 2010
31	January 2010
4	December 2009
21	November 2009
8	October 2009
5	September 2009
33	August 2009
41	July 2009
17	June 2009
61	May 2009
42	April 2009
23	March 2009
90	February 2009
54	January 2009
67	December 2008
37	November 2008
17	October 2008
76	September 2008
33	August 2008
19	July 2008
12	June 2008
32	May 2008
31	April 2008
41	March 2008
33	February 2008
115	January 2008
59	December 2007
124	November 2007
110	October 2007
16	September 2007
72	August 2007
53	July 2007
20	June 2007
74	May 2007
6	April 2007
29	March 2007
3	February 2007
2	January 2007
16	December 2006
75	November 2006

Design

Zawodny | Right Menu | Left Menu

Your Own Design

Paste the URL of your CSS below. Download CSS template