Re: OpenJDK draft trademark license

[Walter Landry <wlandry@caltech.edu>]

Mark Reinhold <mr@sun.com> wrote:
> > From: Walter Landry <wlandry@caltech.edu>
> > 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.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@caltech.edu