From mark at klomp.org  Wed Feb  1 09:42:02 2012
From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 18:42:02 +0100
Subject: Trademark license
In-Reply-To: <20111110044656.D9061111B@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
References: <1320851587.3298.24.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>
	<20111110044656.D9061111B@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
Message-ID: <20120201174202.GA24952@toonder.wildebeest.org>

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 08:46:56PM -0800, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> 2011/11/9 7:13 -0800, mark at klomp.org:
> > On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 12:10 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >> While looking at the trademark license I was surprised to find version
> >> 1.1 at http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html and
> >> in the actual code repositories. A long time ago there was a proposal
> >> for a version 1.2 of the trademark license ...
> > 
> > Sorry for digging up this old topic. But it would be nice to get this
> > cleaned up. Especially since the 1.1 version seems to only mention jdk6
> > and people are shipping jdk7 variants now.
> 
> I'll find someone to take care of this.

Did you find someone?

I am preparing my Fosdem "Can I legally do that?" talk,
and the answer for what can be named how kind of depends
on whether the upgraded trademark license will be made official
or not. Is there a reason for the delay or is it just that still
nobody got to it?

Thanks,

Mark

From donald.smith at oracle.com  Wed Feb  1 09:44:41 2012
From: donald.smith at oracle.com (Donald Smith)
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:44:41 -0500
Subject: Trademark license
In-Reply-To: <20120201174202.GA24952@toonder.wildebeest.org>
References: <1320851587.3298.24.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>	<20111110044656.D9061111B@eggemoggin.niobe.net>
	<20120201174202.GA24952@toonder.wildebeest.org>
Message-ID: <4F297A09.2050001@oracle.com>

Coincidentally, this got moved along yesterday and I think it'll just be 
a day or two to get it posted.

  - Don

On 01/02/2012 12:42 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 08:46:56PM -0800, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
>> 2011/11/9 7:13 -0800, mark at klomp.org:
>>> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 12:10 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>>> While looking at the trademark license I was surprised to find version
>>>> 1.1 at http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html and
>>>> in the actual code repositories. A long time ago there was a proposal
>>>> for a version 1.2 of the trademark license ...
>>> Sorry for digging up this old topic. But it would be nice to get this
>>> cleaned up. Especially since the 1.1 version seems to only mention jdk6
>>> and people are shipping jdk7 variants now.
>> I'll find someone to take care of this.
> Did you find someone?
>
> I am preparing my Fosdem "Can I legally do that?" talk,
> and the answer for what can be named how kind of depends
> on whether the upgraded trademark license will be made official
> or not. Is there a reason for the delay or is it just that still
> nobody got to it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark

From donald.smith at oracle.com  Fri Feb  3 05:20:11 2012
From: donald.smith at oracle.com (Donald Smith)
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:20:11 -0500
Subject: Trademark license
In-Reply-To: <4F297A09.2050001@oracle.com>
References: <1320851587.3298.24.camel@springer.wildebeest.org>	<20111110044656.D9061111B@eggemoggin.niobe.net>	<20120201174202.GA24952@toonder.wildebeest.org>
	<4F297A09.2050001@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <4F2BDF0B.5000003@oracle.com>

This was pushed last night:

http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html

Cheers,

  - Don

On 01/02/2012 12:44 PM, Donald Smith wrote:
> Coincidentally, this got moved along yesterday and I think it'll just 
> be a day or two to get it posted.
>
>  - Don
>
> On 01/02/2012 12:42 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 08:46:56PM -0800, mark.reinhold at oracle.com 
>> wrote:
>>> 2011/11/9 7:13 -0800, mark at klomp.org:
>>>> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 12:10 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>>>> While looking at the trademark license I was surprised to find 
>>>>> version
>>>>> 1.1 at http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html 
>>>>> and
>>>>> in the actual code repositories. A long time ago there was a proposal
>>>>> for a version 1.2 of the trademark license ...
>>>> Sorry for digging up this old topic. But it would be nice to get this
>>>> cleaned up. Especially since the 1.1 version seems to only mention 
>>>> jdk6
>>>> and people are shipping jdk7 variants now.
>>> I'll find someone to take care of this.
>> Did you find someone?
>>
>> I am preparing my Fosdem "Can I legally do that?" talk,
>> and the answer for what can be named how kind of depends
>> on whether the upgraded trademark license will be made official
>> or not. Is there a reason for the delay or is it just that still
>> nobody got to it?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mark